pfovavy at ®G\\$xm. 






/Of 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. _ 



>*sa.- 









THE 



/ ^A 



LAST DAYS OF THE SAVIOUR, 



HISTORY OF THE LORD'S PASSION. 

FROM THE GERMAN OF 

H*>VTw*fVM OLSHAUSEN. 




BOSTON: 
JAMES MUNROE & COMPANY. 

183 9.- 






Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1839, byJAMEi 
Munroe & Company, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court 
of the District of Massachusetts. 



/ 



CAMBRIDGE PRESS : 

MKTCALF, TORRT, AND BALLOU. 



PREFACE, 



The treatise, of which a translation is 
here given, is taken from the Commentary 
on the New Testament, by Doct. Hermann 
Olshausen, of the University of Konigsberg, 
Prussia. It constitutes the second division 
of the second volume of that singularly 
interesting work. 

As a commentator, Olshausen unites ex- 
cellencies, that are rarely found together in 
the same mind. He is remarkable for fideli- 
ty of verbal criticism, and also for power 
and beauty of moral portraiture. Those, 
who may differ from him in opinion, cannot 
but admire the graphic vividness of his de- 
scriptions, and his success in bringing out 
the spiritual sense of the text. . Although, for 



instance, many may think he insists too 
much upon his favorite doctrine of the 
peculiar and glorified body of our Lord, 
yet even these will read the passages, in 
which this doctrine' is most urged, with 
interest, and will find pleasure and profit in 
his interpretation of the facts of the resur- 
rection. 

The translator differs from the author in 
some doctrinal points, but he has received 
so much instruction from his pages, that he 
gladly makes an humble effort to unfold 
them to the English reader. He has not, 
of course, thought proper to alter or omit 
any of the author's doctrinal views. He 
has taken the liberty, however, to abridge 
several passages, and to omit some verbal 
criticisms, which seemed too minute or 
technical to add to the interest or usefulness 
of the work. To fill the following pages 
with criticisms of Greek and Hebrew words, 



PREFACE. 5 

would harm the object, which the translator 
has in view. Perhaps the present under- 
taking might be called a selection, rather 
than a translation, although nothing essential 
in the author has been omitted. 

Those, who are disposed to admire the 
deep religious feeling, so characteristic of the 
German mind, will find in this little work 
much, that is to their taste, while those, who 
are ready to start at the bug-bear, Neology, 
that word so indiscriminately applied, will 
find nothing here to alarm them. 

That this volume may do something to 
aid the unlearned Christian, and may not 
be without use to the biblical scholar, in 
their attempts to understand more fully the 
most important of all passages in the history 
of the Church and the world, is the sincere 
prayer of the translator. 

Nashua, N. H., 1839. 



Note. — The author refers to the following special 
treatises upon the passages of Scripture, considered 
in this part of his work. 

J. D. Michaelis. Explanation of the History of 
the Burial and Resurrection of Christ. Halle, 1783. 
With a Supplement, containing the fifth of the Wol- 
fenbuttel Fragments, with remarks, by J. D. Michae- 
lis. Halle, 1785. 

J. W. Henneburg. Commentary on the Sufferings 
and Death of Christ. Leipsic, 1822. Commentary, 
by the same, on the Burial, Resurrection, and Ascen- 
sion of Jesus. Leipsic, 1826. 



CONTENTS. 

Introduction, 9 

PART FIRST. 
The Sufferings and Death of Jesus Christ, 17 

SECTION I. 

The Last Supper, 20 

SECTION II. 

The Agony in Gethsemane and Arrest, . 74 

SECTION III. 

Examination before Caiaphas and the San- 
hedrim — Peter's Denial, . . 90 

SECTION IV. 

Transactions before Herod and Pilate, . 113 

SECTION V. 

The Crucifixion and Death, . . . 149 

SECTION VI. 

The Burial, 175 



8 CONTENTS. 

PART SECOND. 
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, . . 183 

SECTION I. 

History of the Resurrection, . . • 192 

SECTION II. 

Further Appearances of Jesus on the Day of 

Resurrection, 202 

SECTION III. 

Closing Passages of the Gospels, . . 219 

SECTION IV. 

Appendix to the Gospel of John, . . 237 
Conclusion, 247 



INTRODUCTION. 



The accounts in the four Gospels of the 
sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, 
form in themselves so harmonious a whole, 
that we call them the Passion-history, and 
devote to them a separate consideration. 
All our canonical Gospels have not only, as 
its importance demands, treated this part of 
our Lord's history with peculiar exactness 
and predilection, in as much, as they give us 
such detailed accounts of a few days, as to 
distinguish this from the other parts of the 
Gospel history ; but, aside from the manner 
of representation, an entirely different char- 
acter is expressed in the portraiture of our 
Saviour, from what we discover in the pre- 
ceding pages of the Gospel. Although the 
garb of lowliness and poverty enrobed our 
Lord, from the manger to the cross, yet 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

heretofore a surprising majesty appeared un- 
der this garb. Although Jesus had not 
where to lay his head, he still ruled as 
Prophet and King. He spake, as never 
man spake, he commanded the hearts of his 
followers and reigned in the midst of his 
enemies, who, held by the viewless bands of 
the Spirit, could not limit the broad compass 
of his activity ; he exercised unlimited pow- 
er over the forces of nature, ruled the storm, 
walked over the waves of the sea, fed thou- 
sands with a few loaves, healed the sick, 
cast out evil spirits. But in these last days 
of his earthly pilgrimage, this radiant glory, 
which surrounded him, vanishes altogether. 
His speech, alike gentle and powerful, is 
silent before the multitude of hearers, whom 
it had addressed in vain ; Jesus confines 
himself to the little company of his disci- 
ples, and strives to plant in their hearts the 
undying germ of the Kingdom of God ; his 
glorious miracles cease, everything brilliant, 
everything extraordinary vanishes, the pov- 
erty and lowliness of the outer being reached 
inward through the whole soul ; he sinks, 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

as it were step by step, into deepest humilia- 
tion. The eye, awake to the conception 
of true majesty and beauty, readily sees in 
this utter uncomeliness, the secret glory of 
the Heavenly image, beaming forth the 
more purely and clearly. Although the ac- 
tive virtues shine the stronger, yet the 
passive ones are truly greater and the harder 
to exercise. These have their perfect work 
in Christ; the record of his sufferings 
breathes but a heavenly forbearance, gentle- 
ness, patience. 

Even if we consider the person of Christ 
as merely human, the story of his sorrows 
presents a touching and deeply affecting 
image. But the higher view of his person 
alone can give the true idea of the events, 
which the Evangelists record of our Lord's 
last days on earth. The faith, that in Christ 
Jesus, the Word of the Father was made 
flesh, that all the prophets have spoken of 
him and his appearing, that he was appointed 
to raise up that, which was sunk in guilt by 
the fall of man, and to restore the lost — 
this faith first gives to the story of the Pas- 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

sion the full meaning, which belongs to 
it, and shows the connexion between the 
sufferings and death of Jesus, and his resur- 
rection, as the object of the most momen- 
tous concern. His sufferings and death do 
not appear to the eye of faith, as something 
brought on by the power of circumstances, 
as a sacrifice for a truth, an exalted idea ; 
but as a free-will offering of the Son of 
God, for the reconciliation of a sinful world ; 
and his resurrection, as the necessary con- 
summation of his death of pure love, since 
its all-conquering power subdued death, and 
life could not be held in its bonds. Thus 
as we see in the history of the Passion and 
Resurrection of Jesus, the middle point of 
the Gospel ; the fountain of new life, which 
rests in him, forms peculiarly the idea of it. 
It will seem less improbable to us then, than 
it usually appears to men, that the minute 
circumstances in this history, which are very 
often specially stated, constitute important 
features in this most remarkable picture ; all 
will have a meaning for us, because it relates 
to Him, and to Him at these holy moments. 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

The importance is not to be given to the 
outward events as such ; a nobler, a far 
deeper idea of the history presses upon the 
believer, according to which we discover in 
the particular circumstances, not mere acci- 
dents, but an order divinely willed, which 
by deeds and events speaks to the world 
like a creating Fiat. Although henceforth, 
the mouth of truth was silent, and crucified 
love gave no more admonitions to men, still 
the whole career of our Lord speaks, and 
he still speaks with more life and power to 
the world of sin, through the events, by 
which he finished his course, than all the 
warnings and exhortations of the prophets and 
men of God. The suffering, dying, and vic- 
toriously rising Saviour, with all the various 
attendant circumstances, affords a complete 
model of the great contest between the 
powers of Good and Evil, about which the 
world's history turns in its development. In 
this view, the history of the Passion takes 
its deep, we may say, its infinite character. 
If, in the history of the last moments of 
Christ on earth, we look only at the outward 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

side, there the griefs of many another suf- 
ferer may seem in some respects more severe, 
as to the torments heaped upon him ; in some 
respects more imposing, through the firm- 
ness and consequence of the struggler, while 
Jesus appeared anxious and faltering in his 
inmost soul, (a circumstance, which will be 
more closely examined in the consideration 
of the agony of the Lord in Gethsemane,) 
in some respects more attractive through 
the abundance of striking occurrences in 
the contest. But viewed on the inner side, 
every other historical occurrence can be no 
more compared to the sufferings and death 
of Christ, than any human teacher can be 
compared with our Lord. While it is the 
most exalted office of an earthly sage, to 
be a genuine inquirer after truth, Christ 
himself is the actual truth, which the former 
seeks. All the rays of shining virtues, 
which have appeared in all the earthly 
champions and sufferers for truth and right, 
are united in him, as the sun, and melted 
into an unutterable unity. 



LAST DAYS OF THE SAVIOUR, 



HISTORY OF THE LORD'S PASSION. 



LAST DAYS OF THE SAVIOUR. 



PART FIRST. 

ON THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS 
CHRIST. 

(Matt, xXvi., xxvii.; Mark xiv. ? xv\; Lukexxii., xxiii. } 
John xviii., xix.) 

Before proceeding to the explanation of 
particulars, we give, in few words, a general 
view of the four Gospels, in regard to the 
order of events, in the portion of history 
we are considering. While John, as early 
as the thirteenth chapter, describes the Sa- 
viour's last supper with his disciples, (a de- 
scription, which, together with the accompa- 
nying sayings of our Lord, reaches to chap. 
xvii. 9,) Mark comes much later to the de- 
scription. It may hence seem, as if the 
joint consideration of all four Gospels, in 
2 



18 



ORDER OF EVENTS. 



this section of Evangelical history, must 
have great difficulties. But upon a sufficient 
consideration, these difficulties appear far 
less than would be supposed. Except an 
account of the anointing by Mary at Betha- 
ny, which has already been considered in 
the exposition of John, the three Synoptical* 
Evangelists give no fact, which is to be placed 
before the last supper ; only in two short re- 
marks, that are couched in general terms, 
the particulars of which have their explana- 
tion elsewhere, they speak of the- wicked 
plotting of the Pharisees and the treachery 
of Judas. Hence the matter stands in such 
a way, that we have only two distinct ac- 
counts of the last supper of Jesus with his 
disciples ; one by John ; the second by the 
other Evangelists. The continued parallel 
narration of all four Evangelists, begins at 
John xviii. 1 , where the capture of our Lord is 
related. In the history of the last supper, John 

* This treatise following, and being part of, the ex- 
position of John, the three other Gospels are therefore 
culled Synoptical. 



ORDER OF EVENTS. 19 

is the most explicit narrator, since he commu- 
nicates in connexion all the sublime sayings, 
which our Lord uttered at the end of the meal 
to his disciples. But the case seems entirely 
reversed, in regard to that part of the Gos- 
pel history, which lies between the entry into 
Jerusalem and the last supper. Here John, 
together with Luke, appears the most brief, 
since he entirely omits all those important 
speeches and conversations, which Jesus, ac- 
cording to Matthew, who is the most explicit 
on this subject, held with the Pharisees, and 
with the disciples at Jerusalem. On account 
of these few points of contact between John 
and the Synopsists, until the capture of Je- 
sus, the separate consideration of both ac- 
counts is desirable only up to that period. 
But from the period of our Lord's captivity, 
a satisfactory parallel consideration of the 
four narrations can be carried fully through. 



20 THE LAST SUPPER. 

SECTION I. 

THE LAST SUPPER. 



(Matt. xxvi. 17-35; Mark xiv. 12-31; Lu6e xxii. 

7-38; Johnxiii. 21-29.) 



Our Lord had ended his great public min- 
istry. His voice, which, in the days imme- 
diately before, had so powerfully spoken in 
warning, rebuke, exhortation, and prophecy, 
was silent. The perversity of the Phari- 
sees, the unbelief of the people, had hinder- 
ed its operation. But no perversity, no un- 
belief, could stay the exalted mission of 
Christ. The Redeemer had come to Jeru- 
salem to the Feast, with the firm conviction 
of his approaching death, and he went 
boldly to this death, that from his down- 
fall new life might spring up for a sinful 
world ; that the Comforter might come, the 
Holy Spirit, who should remind the disci- 
ples of all their Lord had spoken, so that 



THE LAST SUPPER. 



21 



they might be able to take up his words, that 
had apparently fallen powerless, and to estab- 
lish their meaning and power for centuries 
and millions of years by the Scripture. — 
From the bustling world of festive Jerusalem 
the Saviour withdrew among the quiet circle 
of his disciples. The twelve, whom he had 
chosen to be the props and pillars of a new 
world, were the company, among whom Je- 
sus had resolved to keep the festival. Even 
in the narrow band of his own followers the 
kingdom of evil had its representative. Not 
one of the disciples indeed was so grounded 
and established in goodness, in his inmost na- 
ture, that he could have resisted thoroughly 
the coming attack of the enemy. When the 
shepherd was slain, all the sheep were scatter- 
ed ; while only one had so opened his heart 
to the influence of evil, that he instead of a 
friend (although a very weak one) became 
an enemy of the Holy One of God. This 
unfortunate one, Judas Iscariot, was at first 
present among the twelve ; but afterwards 
he left the circle, from which he had long 
been alien in spirit. The presence and the 



22 THE LAST SUPPER. 

withdrawal of this lost child most naturally 
give the meal a different character, and there- 
fore it is divided into two unlike parts. The 
last part alone conveys the impression of a 
truly intimate communion of Jesus with his 
faithful ones, whose pure happiness was dis- 
turbed only at the view of the hour of part- 
ing and bitter suffering, that was now ap- 
proaching. Hence the four narrators hasten 
over the first part : they give so much of it 
only, as is necessary to show what was the 
Lord's intercourse with his disciples, while 
Judas was present ; but, with love and with 
all their hearts engaged, they dwell on the 
description of the second part of the supper, 
where the Saviour reveals himself in all the 
fulness of his Divine Nature. John in par- 
ticular rests with longing delight on these 
moments, in which he leaned on the bosom 
of Jesus, as if he delayed to paint those later 
hours, whose image recalled must have so 
troubled him. 

As to the individual incidents, which the 
Evangelists relate of the supper, it has already 
been remarked, that John communicates 



THE LAST SUPPER. 23 

some particulars of it different from the 
others, until John xiii. 21-29, which passage 
coincides with the narrations of the others. 
Only the departure in the account of Luke, 
both from John and Matthew and Mark 
makes a careful consideration necessary as to 
the course of particular events in the sup- 
per. Luke places the complaint of Jesus 
about his betrayer after the instituting of 
the Holy Supper, while Matthew and Mark 
place it before that point. John, as has al- 
ready been remarked, makes no mention of 
the instituting of the Eucharist, and there- 
fore the passage accusing Judas cannot be 
connected with this event so satisfactorily. 
From the very idea of the Holy Supper, it 
is highly probable, that it must have been a 
feast of such intimate love and communion, 
that so alien a member, as Judas was, could 
have had no part in it. Not to mention that 
it would be opposed to the love and compas- 
sion of our Lord, to have allowed the traitor 
to have added to his guilt by partaking of 
the meal in an unworthy spirit. Another 
point in the narrative of Luke, which con- 



24 THE LAST SUPPER. 

flicts with the account of John, is the posi- 
tion of the " strife among the disciples, as to 
who should be greatest in the kingdom of 
God," immediately after the impeachment of 
the traitor. This altercation is connected 
undoubtedly, as the words of Luke intimate, 
with the washing of the disciples' feet. By 
this symbolic act, our Lord would exhibit con- 
descending love, as the only true dignity in 
the kingdom of God. But John xiii. 4, 
shows that the washing of feet took place 
during the meal, and probably at the begin- 
ning; but the complaint about the traitor 
belongs in its position, as we have seen, be- 
fore the supper ; and this, according to the 
plain expression of Luke, immediately suc- 
ceeds the Passover. We must accordingly 
say, that Luke has not been very explicit on 
these two points ; following his account, it 
might be believed that Judas had shared in 
the Holy Supper, which, however, neither 
the narration of Matthew and Mark, nor the 
nature of the occasion signify. And, according 
to this, we might suppose that the disciples 
had striven together, even after the Holy Sup- 



THE LAST SUPPER. 25 

per, a supposition evidently opposed, as we 
learn from John, to their whole frame of 
feeling at the time. This circumstance of 
Luke's Gospel is evidently less to be attrib- 
uted to the fact, that Luke was not present, 
(for this may equally well be said of Mark, 
who gives a pretty full account,) than to the 
idea, that he did not wish to give a full rep- 
resentation of what took place at this meal, 
but only aimed at giving a supplement. He 
therefore looked less at the course of events, 
than to the several accounts themselves. If 
we now take all four narrations together, the 
particular incidents at the last supper may 
be arranged in this manner. First, the Syn- 
opsists speak of the preparation for the 
feast ordered by Jesus. The words of the 
Saviour at the introduction of the meal, as 
well as the mention of the first cup, which 
was handed immediately after, are given on- 
ly by Luke. Hereupon follows the strife of 
the disciples, as to who should be greatest in 
the kingdom of Heaven, with which the ac- 
count of the washing of feet (which John 
alone gives) may be satisfactorily connected. 



26 THE LAST SUPPER. 

To this act the charge against Judas, and his 
consequent withdrawal, may be annexed. 
Upon his withdrawal, the love of the Saviour 
towards his own broke forth, from his heart, 
like a stream long confined, in the words, 
" Now is the Son of Man glorified ; " the 
warning to Peter, which Mark only has, is 
probably next to these words. And then 
probably follows the instituting of the Holy 
Supper, the breaking up of the meal, and 
finally the sayings of Jesus, which he proba- 
bly held with his disciples, standing in the 
hall. We now proceed to consider the par- 
ticulars of the last supper in this order. 

The nature of Gospel narratives demands, 
for their explanation, an account of the man- 
ner in which the Jews celebrated the Passo- 
ver. John's representation requires this less, 
because it does not touch upon the peculiar 
form of this festival. But the narrative of 
Luke, in connexion with Matthew and 
Mark, makes the consideration of the Jew- 
ish custom indispensable. In regard to these, 
we have no information besides the ordi- 
nances in the Pentateuch, excepting more 



THE LAST SUPPER. 27 

modern notices, that are in the Talmud. It 
is in the highest degree probable, that the 
knowledge of the manner, in which this 
was celebrated, has been handed down by 
tradition correctly in all that is essential. The 
Passover, according to the Mosaic law, was, 
together with the Pentecost and Feast of Tab- 
ernacles, the great festival of the Jews. It 
was, as is well known, founded on the de- 
parture from Egypt, and had its name from 
the sparing of the first born. The name 
of the Paschal lamb, is derived from a He- 
brew word, signifying to spare, and was ap- 
plied to the feast itself, which is called in 
Greek Pascha. The Passover is sometimes 
called " the feast of the unleavened bread," 
since the use of such bread was peculiar to 
this feast. The sacrifice and partaking of a 
lamb formed the centre of this feasi. The 
lamb was regarded as an offering for the 
sparing of the first born, and on the one hand 
had the true nature of a sacrifice, (in which 
the idea of an offering for another's sake is 
implied,) but on the other hand it was given 
for pleasure and enjoyment, because the feel- 



28 



THE LAST SUPPER. 



ing of preservation was vividly excited by its 
sacrifice. It has of late been denied, that 
the Paschal lamb was a sacrifice at all, which, 
however, is expressly declared in the Mosa- 
ic law, (Exodus xii. 27; xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 
25.) Even Hengstenburg, in his Christolo- 
gy, thinks it must be granted, that it was not 
an atoning sacrifice. This is entirely true 
in so far as it can neither be ranked as an 
expiatory, nor a sin offering, in which the 
idea of atonement was decidedly expressed ; 
since they did not use lambs for these pur- 
poses, and these offerings were entirely 
burnt, but the Paschal lamb was mostly eaten 
by those who offered it. Nevertheless the 
idea of substitution very plainly exists in 
the offering of the Paschal lamb, since with 
its blood the door posts of the dwellings of 
the Israelites were sprinkled, in order that the 
destroying angel might pass over. Hence 
it may be with the utmost propriety said, 
that the Paschal lamb has its own entirely 
peculiar character, that the characteristic of 
the expiatory together with the thank-offer- 
ing is expressed in it, and even in this union 



THE LAST SUPPER. 29 

there is a most affecting prefiguration of the 
sacrifice of Christ, since in this the ground 
for the deepest sorrow is also the occasion 
for the purest joy. The Paschal lamb, as 
the first sacrifice instituted by God, as the 
germ of all others, contains in itself all these 
characteristics. By the tenth of the month, 
Nisan or Abib, the heads of families must, 
according to the law of Moses, select a ram 
or he-goat for sacrifice ; it must be, like all 
animals for sacrifice, without blemish. On 
the 14th day of the same month, towards 
evening, the animal was slain in the Temple, 
(therefore the Passover could be celebrated 
only at Jerusalem,) and the meal prepared. 
•For the proper celebration of the feast, which 
continued from the 15th to the 20th of Ni- 
san, the dwelling was carefully cleaned of all 
leaven, and during the festival, unleavened 
bread, as bread of affliction, alone was used. 
The Paschal lamb was not to be boiled in 
water, but roasted by fire. It was eaten 
with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. 
Not more than twenty nor less than ten per- 
sons should be present at the meal, who were 



30 THE LAST SUPPER. 

to eat the whole lamb ; but if any was left, 
it was consumed by fire. The procedure at 
the time of the meal was also regulated ; and, 
according to the more recent account of the 
Talmud, was as follows. The master of the 
house, who officiated as priest, opened with 
a short prayer, and handed round a cup of 
wine, mingled with water, among those pres- 
ent. After all had drunken and washed 
their hands, the food already mentioned, the 
lamb, with the bitter herbs, with the unleav- 
ened bread, and some other dishes were serv- 
ed. In eating, the son asked the father of 
the house, what all this meant, and he re- 
plied, that it was done in remembrance of 
the departure from Egypt. Hereupon, the 
113th and 114th Psalms were read, the first 
of which is an universal song of praise, and 
the second a song of triumph, in which the 
departure from Egypt is represented, as a 
mighty deliverance of Jehovah's. Next came 
the second cup, upon the partaking of which, 
the master of the house breaks the unleav- 
ened bread, (which consists of thin, flat 
cakes,) and divides it among the guests, who 



THE LAST SUPPER. 31 

eat it in the sauce of the bitter herbs. Here 
follows the third cup, which is called the cup 
of blessing, and to this is added the sing- 
ing of Psalms 115-118. At the fourth cup, 
they read sometimes Psalms 120-137, which 
are called the great Hallel, and then ended 
with the fifth cup. 

The accounts, which the Gospels give us 
of the Paschal supper of Jesus, agree essen- 
tially with this description. Our Lord offici- 
ated among his disciples, as head of a family 
and priest ; — he uttered the prayers and 
songs, broke the bread, and distributed the 
cups of wine ; but, above all, he comprehend- 
ed the symbolical use of the Paschal feast in 
the deepest signification, and consecrated it 
to holy observances of a higher kind, which 
in the new Jerusalem, the community of the 
Lord, were to be repeated until the day of 
his coming. 

After these general observations, we now 
proceed to consider the acount of the Synop- 
sists (Matt. xxvi. 17 - 19, and parallel passa- 
ges) about the preparation of the feast. 
There is no reason to suppose anything mi- 



32 THE LAST SUPPER. 

raculous in Christ's sending forth two of his 
disciples, and in their finding the man with 
the vessel of water, and a room already pre- 
pared for them. The meaning of the Apos- 
tles coincides perfectly with the supposition, 
that our Lord had previously requested the 
man, who was probably inclined favorably 
towards him, to have the Passover celebrated 
in a chamber of his house, in company 
with the disciples. That Jesus did not in 
any way mention the name of the man, nor 
his abode to the disciples, whom he sent to 
make all ready, but merely gave a direction 
that would lead to the man, is very easily 
explained, as Theophylact and many others 
after him have remarked, on the supposition, 
that Judas Iscariot would not be aware be- 
fore hand of the place, where the Passover 
was to be celebrated ; otherwise Judas might 
have induced the Priests to seize Jesus in 
the city before the meal, and it was very nat- 
ural for the Saviour to wish to celebrate the 
sacred meal in peace and quietness with his 
own. On the way to the meal, Judas did 
not easily find the place, at which he could 



THE LAST SUPPER. 33 

withdraw without suspicion, and inform the 
Priests ; and when he was allowed by Jesus 
to depart, the night had so far come on, that 
Judas could not expect, even if he had gath- 
ered the officers of the law together, to find 
Jesus still in the city ; therefore he led them 
immediately to Gethsemane. What object 
could there have been for a miracle on such 
an occasion ? It may be said, that a miracle 
was needed to strengthen the faith of the 
disciples. But let us remember in the out- 
set, that they betrayed no such weakness as 
to need a confirmation of faith. Moreover, 
after the infinitely sublimer miracles, which 
they had beheld, this fact was not important 
enough to confirm them much. And, final- 
ly, in order that the event should be regarded 
as miraculous, it must have been decided, 
that there could have been no previous con- 
cert. But since the narrators do not by a sin- 
gle word indicate this, the view of the mat- 
ter above given is the only tenable one. Be- 
sides, the accounts of Luke and Mark are 
distinguished for their fulness and accuracy 
of detail. Both speak of the man with the 
3 



34 THE LAST SUPPER. 

water-pitcher, who was to direct the two dis- 
ciples, describe the condition of the cham- 
ber, destined for the feast, and Luke express- 
ly names Peter and John, as the two disci- 
ples who had orders to make the arrange- 
ments for the evening. 

The Synopsists are unanimous in fixing 
the time of this preparation on the first day 
of the feast of unleavened bread. By this 
is meant the day, upon which all leaven and 
all leavened bread is removed from the 
houses, and on the limit of both days, which, 
according to the Jewish custom, begins at six 
o'clock at sun-down — on the limit of 14th 
and 15th of Nisan, they slew the Paschal 
lamb, and opened the feast with partaking 

of it.'* . 

But John's Gospel, when compared with 

the Synopsists, seems to present some diffi- 

* According to the view of Rauch, the Paschal lamb 
.was not eaten at the end, but at the beginning, of 14th 
Nisan, or between the 13th and 14th day, or from 3 to 
q in the afternoon, by our reckoning; an opinion, 
which is probably correct, and does much to remove 
difficulties. 



THE LAST SUPPER. 35 

culties. But these difficulties are easily re- 
moved. John xiii. 1, seems to speak of this 
preparation, as made the day before the Pass- 
over ; this apparent difference disappears, if 
we consider that John wrote for the Greeks, 
who did not, like the Jews, begin the day 
with sunset, and that therefore the 14th of 
Nisan might as well be called the day before 
the Passover, as (after six in the evening) it 
could be called the first day of the feast. 
Moreover the words of Jesus, connected 
with the date in John, do not stand in im- 
mediate connexion with the account of the 
last supper, but merely with the statement 
of the knowledge of Jesus, that his hour had 
come. In John xix. 14, 31, in which the 
day of Christ's death is called the prepara- 
tion of the Passover, this expression can very 
simply be understood to mean the prepara- 
tion day, preceding the Sabbath, which fell 
upon the Passover week, and therefore pos- 
sessed a peculiar sanctity. The chief diffi- 
culty, however, lies in John xviii. 28, where 
the Jews are said to have avoided entirely 
Pilate's palace, lest they should be defiled, 



36 THE LAST SUPPER. 

" but that they might eat the Passover/' while 
Jesus is represented by the other Evangelists, 
as having celebrated it with his disciples the 
evening before.* When it is said that the 
Jews did not wish to defile themselves, " but 
that they might eat the Passover," we can 
well suppose the word translated " Passo- 
ver," Pascha, to relate to an offering, which 
was offered the day after the regular Paschal 
feast. At the end of the first day of the 



* Without following our author in his statement of 
the modes, in which different authors have sought to 
harmonize this seeming opposition, and his objections 
to these modes, we merely state the explanation, that 
to him appears most satisfactory. Let it be remark- 
ed, however, that he appears in the preceding note 
to doubt his own view, and to concede to that of Rauch, 
to whose opinion Tholuck has finally yielded. Ac- 
cording to this view, Jesus partook of the Paschal lamb 
between the 14th and 15th of Nisan, and when it is said, 
that the day after, the Jews were unwilling to defile 
themselves, but that " they might eat the Passover," 
we are to understand by the Passover, not the Paschal 
lamb, nor the Chagigah, but the feast of herbs and un- 
leavened bread, which was continued for a week. For 
a full statement of this opinion, see Biblical Reposito- 
ry, January, 1834. — Translator. 



THE LAST SUPPER. 37 

Passover, a solemn sacrifice was made, which 
was called " Chagigah." This offering, like 
all others offered on that day, was called by 
a name derived from the Hebrew word, to 
spare, from which the word " Pascha " is also 
derived. Moreover it should be remember- 
ed, that entering a heathen abode defiled the 
Jews only for the same day. Therefore the 
entering the house of Pilate would keep the 
Jews away from the Chagigah, which occured 
on the same day, but not from the Passover, 
which (pre-supposing Jesus to have died on 
the 14th Nisan) would have taken place on 
the following day, that is, after six in the even- 
ing. Tholuck and other distinguished com- 
mentators adopt this view. 

By the preparation for the Passover, which 
was entrusted to Peter and John, we are to 
understand, not merely the arrangement of 
the chamber, but above all things the slaugh- 
ter of the lamb. This must take place in 
the temple, and every Israelite exercised 
priestly privileges, as it were, on this day. 
Both the minute narrators describe the cham- 
ber, in which the meal was to be held, as an 



38 THE LAST SUPPER. 

upper room ready furnished. We have no 
particular information as to the master of the 
house himself. If Jesus had refrained from 
mentioning his name on account of Judas, 
Matthew surely might have named him after- 
wards, when he wrote his Gospel ; yet he 
speaks of him only as a certain person. It 
is not improbable that Matthew witheld the 
name to avoid compromising the man, who 
must have been living, or at least his family, 
when Matthew wrote. That he was a fol- 
lower of Jesus is not expressly said ; but the 
words, " my time is at hand" render this 
highly probable. This expression cannot re- 
fer merely to the preparation of the meal, 
but to the whole Divine Mission of the Son, 
which now drew near completion. It is then 
highly probable, that the master of the house 
was a secret friend of Jesus, and thus regard- 
ed, the expression, with thee I will eat the 
Passover, conveys not merely the sense of a 
bare announcement, but also a mark of love 
in the Lord to his disciple: I will keep the 
Passover at thy house with my disciples. 
Like Zaccheus, this man is also to receive the 



THE LAST SUPPER. 39 

gracious favor of having his dwelling conse- 
crated by the Lord in this way. That he 
himself was not present at this meal, is evi- 
dent from the fact, that as head of the house- 
hold, he must have officiated at the supper of 
the Paschal lamb with his own family. But 
even here the Saviour exercised the highest 
forbearance. Since he did not express him- 
self against Judas openly before the other 
disciples, much less upbraid him, but allowed 
the betrayer a favorable occasion to with- 
draw. 

The disciples overwhelmed at this disclos- 
ure from their master, and in their inno- 
cence seeking the guilt in themselves, rather 
than attributing it to any one else, even if 
they might mistrust the disposition of Judas, 
asked Jesus, is it I ? According to the rep- 
resentation of Matthew and Mark, the Lord 
seems to have given this question a public 
answer ; he who dippeth with me into the 
dish, the same is he. But the question of 
Judas, whether it were he, as given by Mat- 
thew, will appear entirely superfluous accord- 
ing to this view, and moreover such a public 



40 THE LAST SUPPER. 

reply is opposed to the forbearing manner, in 
which John represents the Savior to have 
acted. We must doubtless fill out the ac- 
count in Matthew and Mark from John ; and 
believe that the Lord replied in a low tone 
to the question of John, to which Peter gave 
occasion : it is he to whom I shall give the 
sop. There yet remains some difference of 
statement, but by no means an essential one. 
According to Matthew and Mark, Judas dip- 
ped into the dish with Jesus, as soon as this 
was spoken, while according to John, Jesus 
dipped a sop for Judas and gave it him. No 
importance should be attached to this slight 
variation ; it was enough, that, without 
speaking the name, Jesus gave John a sign, 
by which he might know the betrayer. But 
in either case, we must allow, that John has 
given the correct view of the occurrence, 
and the others have recorded it in a modified 
form. The act of dipping into the dish, as 
spoken of by John, is very easily understood 
from the customs of the feast. The master 
of the house took from the Easter-cake a 
piece, which he dipped in the bitter herbs, 



THE LAST SUPPER. 41 

and handed to the company in turn. If we 
suppose that, at the moment of John's ques- 
tion regarding the betrayer, the turn of Ju- 
das had come, we easily understand what 
induced the Lord to select this token. 

Jesus declares, that his betrayal was in 
accordance with the counsels of God, and yet 
denounces woe to the betrayer. The neces- 
sity of his betrayal was ordained by the will 
of God, and had been declared in the proph- 
ets. Still this necessity of fulfilling the de- 
crees of the Almighty by no means destroy- 
ed the moral freedom of man. We cannot 
indeed explain how the foreknowledge and 
decrees of God are compatible with human 
freedom, but conscience, reason, and scrip- 
ture alike declare, that God knows and rules 
all events, and that man is a moral agent 
and responsible for his actions. The very 
passage in which the necessity of Christ's 
betrayal is recorded, records also Christ's 
declaration of the fearful guilt and doom of 
the traitor. The declaration of John, that 
after the sop Satan entered into Judas, marks 
the depth of the traitor's degradation. I 



42 



THE LAST SUPPER. 



cannot justify the opinion, that this expres- 
sion is to be taken figuratively. If the ex- 
istence of a kingdom of darkness is certain, 
we have reason to believe in its influence 
upon the human mind. 

According to John's account, the execu- 
tion of the dark design of Judas followed 
the sop, which the Saviour reached to him. 
It is not unlikely, that he either understood 
the question of the Evangelist to Christ, or 
suspected its meaning, in connexion with the 
subsequent conduct of Jesus, and that this 
inflamed his anger. It is worthy of remark, 
that thus the bread, which to the true disci- 
ples is a blessing, became to Judas a curse. 

Matthew finally observes, that Judas ask- 
ed, Is it I ? and the Lord openly replied, 
Thou hast said. This circumstance appears 
to conflict with John's statement, according 
to which the design of Judas remained un- 
known to the disciples. The simplest solu- 
tion of the difficulty is this : in shame and 
anger at finding himself detected, Judas prob- 
ably stammered out the same question, as the 
other disciples had asked ; either the disci- 



THE LAST SUPPER. 43 

pies did not notice it, or it was spoken so 
softly and quickly, as also the Lord's reply, 
that the disciples thought no more of it. — 
John and Peter, who knew him, as the be- 
trayer, might not have thought the moment 
for executing his plan so near. According 
to the careful statement of John, the Saviour 
ordered Judas to hasten the execution of his 
purpose : what thou doest, do quickly. In 
these words, it is obvious, there is no com- 
mand to perform the deed, but only to leave 
the circle of disciples, and hasten that which 
had already been decided upon. The disci- 
ples might easily have misunderstood the 
sense of these words, and even John, who 
knew the betrayer, might not think the time 
of the deed so near. Hence they make dif- 
ferent conjectures as to his withdrawal ; but 
it is little likely, that since the darkness had 
already broken in, either purchases would 
be made or alms distributed. John closes 
his account with the graphic words : it was 
night. These words, besides referring to 
the preceding time of day mentioned, give 
the reader the idea, that it was the hour r in 



44 THE LAST SUPPER. 

which darkness has sway. With the with- 
drawal of this representative of darkness in 
the circle around the Lord, his love broke 
forth, like a stream long obstructed, in the 
words : Now is the Son of Man glorified and 
God is glorified in him. 

The conversation of the Lord with Peter 
very fitly follows the accusation of the trai- 
tor. The latter had entirely yielded to temp- 
tation, whereas Peter, although by nature 
subject to the attacks of the adversary, he 
also fell, yet was enabled by the sincerity of 
his heart to recover from his fall through re- 
pentance and faith, and this experience must 
have been of service to him, since it thor- 
oughly broke down the old nature, and ena- 
bled him to become a yet more active labor- 
er in the kingdom of God. The Saviour's 
allusion to this approaching fall must have 
produced a beneficial humility in the Apos- 
tle's mind, and prevented all arrogance in re- 
spect to the wretched Judas. These remarks 
must have preceded the establishment of the 
Supper, since the departure to the Mount of 
Olives immediately followed the Hymn of 



THE LAST SUPPER. 45 

thanksgiving at the close of the Supper, while 
the long addresses recorded by John, in which 
the conversation with Peter could have found 
no place, were made previously. 

When Judas had left the chamber, Jesus 
addressed his disciples upon the coming 
woes, and told them, that they all should be 
offended of him that night. This saying may 
be well compared with the previous declara- 
tion, " One of you shall betray me ! " it was 
calculated to damp all feelings of self-satisfac- 
tion. From the words of Christ, ye shall be 
offended of me this night, the remark of 
Peter, " Although all men may be offended, 
yet not I," makes the transition very easy to 
the address to him. " The severest struggle 
now awaits thee," was our Lord's reply. The 
expression, " Satan has desired to have you, 
that he may sift you as wheat," conveys this 
idea : " There are seasons in the course of 
moral development, in which the whole power 
of evil approaches men with all manner of 
temptations : at such times, real goodness 
sustains itself, and impurity is brought to 
light." 



46 THE LAST SUPPER. 

In this sifting, Judas fell away like chaff, 
while Peter was made to fall, but he recov- 
ered himself again. Upon this point, the 
Lord prophetically enlightens him, and refers 
the victory of his faith to the prayer offered 
in Peter's behalf. This remarkable inci- 
dent leads us to think of the subject of in- 
tercession. We cannot refrain from asking 
here, did the Lord intercede for Judas? — 
The scriptures do not affirm this ; but from 
the very idea of supplication, we may answer 
the question in the following manner : Pray- 
er, even when offered by the Saviour himself, 
cannot be considered to take away the free- 
dom of him, for whom it is offered. It may 
strengthen the disposition of the mind al- 
ready inclined to goodness, but it cannot 
force the mind, that is already opposed to 
goodness. Acordingly we may say : as long 
as Judas was struggling with himself, whether 
or not he should resign himself to the dark 
purpose of his heart, the Lord followed him 
with prayers, in order to secure the victory to 
the better part. But after he had fully giv- 
en himself up to the purpose, the deed was 



THE LAST SUPPER. 47 

already virtually performed, and the power 
of the spirit in prayer would avail nothing, 
except to add to the guilt of a soul deter- 
minded to resist its influences. The prayer 
for Peter was directed towards constancy in 
faith, not for truth or preservation from fall- 
ing. The fall seems to have been needful 
for Peter, like a salutary crisis in severe dis- 
eases, in order to break up the old man, and 
secure the victory ever after to the new. 
Hence it came, that Peter held firm faith in 
the Lord's pardoning love, in order to recov- 
er from the fall. On this recovery from the 
fall through repentance and faith his peculiar 
zeal was founded ; after his conversion he 
became the rock of faith, on which all waver- 
ing and weakness were to be firmly fixed. 

The natural security of Peter, his confi- 
dence in his own strength and good will were 
so great, that he did not regard this warning 
of the Saviour. Jesus foretold his denial of 
him in the plainest terms. We are not for 
a moment to doubt Peter's sincerity. He 
was sincere in his declarations, but in his in- 
experience, he did not know how often, by 



48 THE LAST SUPPER. 

Divine permission, all inward power is with- 
drawn from men, and how in such a state of 
nakedness and inward destitution, nothing 
can gain the victory, but humble faith in the 
power of God. In momentary feeling of his 
own power, and in haughty self-confidence 
he regarded himself as invincible, even in 
the severest conflict. 

Christ now goes on to speak of his ap- 
proaching sufferings, as the extreme point of 
his humiliation. He quotes the saying of 
Isaiah : " He shall be numbered with trans- 
gressors," and applies it to himself, (Luke 
xxii. 37.) With these latter hours of the pow- 
er of darkness the Saviour compares the ear- 
lier seasons of blessing. The description of 
these seasons of blessing is given in words, 
which are taken from the instructions to the 
Apostles, as given in the tenth chapter of 
Matthew. Then all outward things were of 
no concern to them, and the fulness of out- 
ward blessings was an emblem of the spirit- 
ual power flowing into their hearts so abun- 
dantly. Now a season of trial and want 
ensues, in which everything, that can be pro- 



THE LAST SUPPER. 49 

cured, must be made ready. In so far as 
this, the connection is clear, and the sense 
of the figurative language quite intelligible. 
But there is a difficulty in the expression, " let 
him that hath no sword sell his garment and 
buy one." The only satisfactory explanation 
of this passage is found in supposing the 
word sword, as well as purse and scrip, to 
be employed in a figurative sense. Neither of 
the expressions refers to a journey, since no 
journey was to be taken ; they refer merely 
to a state of preparation. Thus the expres- 
sion, " sword," refers to defence, not bodily 
defence indeed, but spiritual. It is according- 
ly intended, that they should prepare the 
sword of the spirit. The sense of the pas- 
sage is therefore as follows ; " Before, in the 
days of blessing, the Lord took care of you 
and strove for you, you needed not prepare 
anything, all flowed towards you ; but now 
in these evil days, you must employ every 
care and exertion, and gather together what- 
ever means you possess available towards 
spiritual life ; at least you need the sword of 
the spirit, in order to resist the evil day and 
4 



50 THE LAST SUPPER. 

be master of the field ; purchase this there- 
fore even by the severest effort, renounce 
every earthly good, even sell your very gar- 
ments or most needful good, in order to at- 
tain the imperishable treasure and to receive 
its virtues." The disciples now misunder- 
stood this inner sense of Christ's words, and 
thought only of metal swords, and said they 
already had some. The Saviour must have 
thought it useless at such a moment to go 
into a particular explanation of so simple a 
thing. The disciples were already too much 
fixed in their opinion, to allow of their being 
brought to the right point of view. The re- 
mark, "it is sufficient," appears to have been 
made, just as an evasive reply is given to chil- 
dren, when it is found impossible to make 
them understand. The expression conveys a 
kind of double sense, since it may refer either 
to the two swords, in the signification, " they 
are sufficient," or to the whole conversation, 
"enough of this matter, I see you do not un- 
derstand me." The thought that there is irony 
in the remark, or that the sense is, " yes it is 
enough, your two swords would be a pretty 



THE LAST SUPPER. 51 

defence," does not seem to me to correspond 
with the earnest frame of our Lord's mind. 

After this account of the preparation of 
the feast, the description of the feast itself 
follows. Towards evening, (therefore at the 
beginning of the 15th of Nisan,) Jesus sat 
down to eat with his disciples, all twelve of 
them, as the Synopsists unanimously state. 
Luke alone gives us the words, with which 
the Saviour introduces the meal, and the sol- 
emn opening of it. The words spring, as is 
natural, from the mention of his coming suf- 
fering, and from the desire of Jesus to enjoy 
the Paschal supper with his disciples once 
more, and for the last time in this world. 
The beginning, "with desire I have desired 
to eat this Passover with you before I suf- 
fer," has something deep and heart-touching 
in it. Purely human, and subject to every 
feeling of love, desire, sorrow, the Saviour 
appears far remote from all stoical apathy. 
In entire conformity with the prescribed Jew- 
ish custom, Christ opened the meal with a 
prayer of thanksgiving, and then handed 
the cup. This cup is to be distinguished 



52 THE LAST SUPPER. 

from the cup given at the Holy supper, since 
the last was filled at the end of the meal ; 
of those, that followed it, the gospel history 
says nothing. With the usual words with 
which this cup was handed, '* take this and 
divide it " among yourselves, Luke joins the 
remark, " for I say unto you, I will not drink 
of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom 
of God shall come." (Lukexxii. 18.) Je- 
sus had already expressed the same thought 
in Luke xxii. 16, where he says, " I will not 
any more eat of the Passover, until it be ful- 
filled in the kingdom of God." 

Now undoubtedly, as has been already 
stated in the consideration of the order of 
incidents at the last Supper, the strife be- 
tween the disciples, as to who should be 
greatest in the kingdom of Heaven, occurred 
at this point of the feast, and led to the 
washing of the disciples feet. This took 
place after they had sat down to the meal. 
but still in the presence of Judas, so that 
the Saviour (which exalts his humility) wash- 
ed the feet even of his betrayer. Hence 
this saying can here alone find place, since 



THE LAST SUPPER. 53 

after the expression of Jesus about the trai- 
tor, Judas withdrew. Nothing is said about 
the occasion of this strife. The common 
idea of its origin, namely, that the Apostles 
always expected the establishment of an 
earthly kingdom of Christ, and only contend- 
ed about the highest places in it, cannot be 
easily defended. The remark of Jesus was 
not suited, if such motives were in the minds 
of the disciples, to destroy their false expecta- 
tions, but was adapted to confirm the disci- 
ples therein, since Jesus promised them, that 
they should sit on twelve thrones, and judge 
the twelve tribes of Israel. In the parallel 
passage, (Matthew xx. 20,) which is sug- 
gested by an outward occurrence, in which 
the other disciples think they discover such 
a striving after temporal power among the 
children of Zebedee, there is nothing to jus- 
tify the idea that Jesus occasioned such a 
strife ; moreover Jesus represents the sur- 
render of one's own life, as the necessary 
expression of pure love. Besides, accord- 
ing to this view, the disciples must seem en- 
tirely without sensibility, if it were possible 



54 THE LAST SUPPER. 

for them, at so sacred a moment, to think 
more of themselves than of their Lord and 
Master. The idea is far more likely, that 
the strife arose about the places at table. — 
Each would wish to sit nearer the Lord, 
and in the struggle for these places, which 
was occasioned by love for their Master, ref- 
erence might be made to a higher or lower 
place in the kingdom of Christ. These, as 
well as other remarks incidentally made, 
might induce Christ to inculcate upon his 
disciples humility and self-abasement, as the 
virtues peculiarly Christian. 

The next passage, which comes before us 
according to our view of the course of events 
at the last Supper, is Christ's accusation of 
the traitor, which preceded his withdrawal. 
This very fitly and conformably follows the 
preceding promise to the faithful disciples ; 
joy in regard to this must have led the Sa- 
viour by contrast to dwell with grief upon 
that. Of the unsuitable position of Luke's 
statement of this incident, enough has been 
already said to show, that it could not have 
occurred at the end of the Holy Supper. 



THE LAST SUPPER. 



55 



During the meal, Jesus was seized with 
sorrow at the thought, that one of his disci- 
ples was to betray him, (John xiii. 21.) He 
now intentionally expressed his thought ; 
perhaps in the hope of softening the heart 
of the unfortunate Judas, through the power 
of sorrowing love, and in the opposite event, 
to induce his withdrawal, since he made 
known to him, that his dark design was dis- 
covered. 

With the withdrawal of the representative 
of darkness, in the circle around the Lord, 
his love broke forth, like a long imprisoned 
stream, in the words, " Now is the Son of 
Man glorified," and the sublime passages 
which follow. (John xiii. 31.) 

The last point in the account of the Sa- 
viour's last meal with his disciples, is the his- 
tory of the instituting of the Lord's Sup- 
per, for which the exhortations of Jesus, 
immediately preceding, constitute the pre- 
paratory sermon, which was intended to 
lead the disciples to the most earnest self- 
examination. After Judas had retired, eve- 
ry thing necessary had been said, the Saviour 



56 THE LAST SUPPER. 

proceeded to the establishment of an ordin- 
ance, which he left to the eternal remem- 
brance of his church, until his second com- 
ing. In the retired stillness of the little cir- 
cle of his own, the Saviour performed a sim- 
ple, unim posing act, which, however, was to 
become of interest to the history of the 
world. It is mournful, that this feast of love 
has been the occasion of the severest and 
most enduring controversies, which ecclesi- 
astical and dogmatic history has to record. 
The simple words of ordaining the rite have 
led to the most manifold constructions. The 
expositor of Scripture entirely mistakes his 
office, if he allows himself to be drawn into 
a detail of the interpretations, that have 
been found necessary for the support of this 
or that party opinion. It is the business of 
dogmatic history to tell of these. The ex- 
positor ought rather merely to carry the read- 
er back to the train of ideas, which the 
Lord must have had in uttering the words, 
and the disciples must have had in listening 
to them. But he must be therefore willing 
to state his own individual opinion in relation 



THE LAST SUPPER. 57 

to the prevailing one. It must not meanwhile 
be overlooked, that the opinion of the disci- 
ples at the establishment of the Lord's Sup- 
per cannot be considered as perfected. It 
is in the highest degree probable, that the 
idea,which the Saviour connected with it, was 
not then expressed to them. We find them 
indeed so undeveloped in all respects, before 
the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the 
day of Pentecost, that they first after that 
comprehended the full idea of the ordinance, 
while, at the same time, we have no reason 
to suppose, that Christ had connected with 
the establishment of the rite an explanation 
of its nature. This consideration is consol- 
ing, in as much, as we may infer from it, 
that the degree of the coirectness of our 
views of the nature of the sacrament does 
not determine the blessing of its enjoyment, 
(supposing that the spiritual eye has not 
been wilfully closed to the right,) but the 
purity of desire for power and strength from 
above. Accordingly members of all denom- 
inations, who have different opinions of the 
Supper, may partake of its blessing, if they 



58 THE LAST SUPPER. 

only have Faith. But the expositor must 
not on this account, in order to place the 
reader in the train of ideas, which Jesus had, 
and which the Apostles had, after their 
illumination by the Holy Spirit, regarding 
the Holy Supper — he must not think him- 
self freed from all considerations of church 
customs, the authentic explanations of the 
nature of the Lord's Supper, and the gen- 
eral connexion of Christian doctrine. — 
Else in this case, as well as the opposite, he 
will fall into error. 

In the first place, as to what concerns the 
usage of the Church, this must be consid- 
ed, because the question relates to a perma- 
ment ordinance. If an expositor would in- 
terpret the narrations of Matthew and Mark 
merely grammatically, it might be inferred, 
that Christ had merely wished to take leave 
of his disciples, by an action symbolical of 
his death, and had not thought of a repeti- 
tion of this Supper. But the usage of the 
primitive church, which we must regard, as 
being founded by the Apostles, who were 
the authentic interpreters of our Lord's 



THE LAST SUPPER. 59 

meaning, shows just the contrary. And 
since the accounts of Luke and Paul con- 
tain the most decided command for the rep- 
etition of the Supper in the words of the 
ordinance, it is clear that Matthew and Mark 
must have regarded it as the church usage 
well known already to their readers. 

In the second place, as to the authentic 
explanations of the nature of the ordinance, 
we may refer especially to 1 Cor. x. 16-22, 
and to xi. 23 - 29, and in one respect to John 
vi. In these passages a decidedly spiritual 
character is ascribed to the Supper, an ex- 
amination is necessary before partaking, and 
either a blessing or curse is attached to it. 
On this account, the view of Zuinglius, that 
he supper is merely a commemorative meal, 
is excluded, because according to this it has 
no specific character. 

Finally, as to the decision of the question, 
what peculiar sanctity lies in the elements 
at the Holy Supper, a reference is necessary 
to the connexion, in which this doctrine 
stands with the whole compass of Gospel 
doctrine, according to the principle of inter- 



60 



THE LAST SUPPER. 



pretation by the analogy of faith. In regard 
to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, the 
biblical doctrine of the connexion of flesh 
and spirit, and of the glorification of the 
body, is peculiarly important. Wherever 
the biblical doctrine of the resurrection and 
the spiritual body, which the faithful have in 
it, is denied, and wherever spirit and body 
are separated by rigid Dualism, without any 
approximation being made, there must the 
peculiar characteristic of the supper be ex- 
plained away into a general spiritual opera- 
tion, which is equally realized in prayer. 
Thus the Catholic doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion appears erroneous, according to the an- 
alogy of faith, since, as the Word, which 
became flesh, did not change the flesh into 
itself, or itself into the flesh, but, as in the 
case of the glorification of the body of Christ, 
both the human and Divine are firmly in it. 
so also is it in regard to the Lord's Supper. 
According to what has been said, I hold Lu- 
ther's opinion of the Holy Supper, as that, 
which entirely coincides in all essential points 
with the usage of the church, as well as with 



THE LAST SUPPER. 61 

the authentic explanations of the original 
words of the ordinance, and with the connex- 
ion with Christian doctrine. 

According to my conviction, the Scripture 
teaches, that, in the Lord's Supper, the Sa- 
viour, who sits with his glorified humanity at 
the right hand of God, communicates to the 
faithful even his glorified corporeal nature 
— that corporeal nature, which cannot be 
separated from his spiritual and Divine be- 
ing — which, as Ignatius says, is a medicine 
of immortal efficacy, a germ of new life for 
the wakening body of the faithful believer. 
My opinion, however, diners from Luther's, 
in the first place, because I do not conceive 
it implied in the idea of the Lord's Supper, 
that all, who partake of it, receive the body 
of their Lord. Although the body may be 
partaken, it is still not to be taken with the 
mouth, since it is a spiritual body. Where, 
therefore, the organs of the spiritual body 
are wanting, the mouth of faith, wherever, 
above all, no new spiritual man has been 
born by baptism, who is to be spiritually 
nurtured, there the body of the Lord can- 



62 



THE LAST SUPPER. 



not be enjoyed. I differ from Luther, sec- 
ondly, in thinking that not the whole Christ, 
he who was slain on the cross, is enjoy- 
ed in the Supper, but an influence from 
him, and from the glorified body of the 
Saviour. As long as the Lord was upon 
earth, his body was being glorified, but the 
process was not completed. It still lay un- 
der the possibility of death ; but after the 
resurrection, death was impossible. The 
opinion, that the whole Christ is present in 
the Supper, leads to the doctrine of the Om- 
nipresence of the body of Christ, and of the 
right hand of God, which in the manner, in 
which Luther represents it, is not biblical. 
The truth in this idea is only this — that our 
Lord, after the union of the human with the 
Divine, works everywhere with his humani- 
ty. As the sun above sends forth his beams 
all around, so the Saviour breathes forth a 
vivifying influence from himself, which, alike 
human and Divine, has power to glorify men 
in spirit, body, and soul, and which is taken 
in, wherever the organs for it are ready. — 
Every operation of Christ has the power to 



THE LAST SUPPER. 63 

produce him wholly in the heart, as the spark 
can produce the flame, from which itself 
arose. As according to this, the Divine and 
human nature in the person of the Saviour 
are not confounded, although inseparably 
united, so in the Lord's Supper, the power 
of Christ is joined with the bread and wine, 
without one's taking away or even changing 
the nature of the other. 

If we now consider the several passages, 
relating to the Lord's Supper, it is plain, that 
the passage in the first of Corinthians, elev- 
enth chapter, twenty-third and following ver- 
ses, is to be regarded as most important. 
Since not only do Matthew and Mark say 
very little of the subject, implying, as they 
do, a knowledge of church usage in the 
case, while in John, the history of the estab- 
lishment of the Supper is entirely wanting, 
for in his sixth chapter he merely refers to 
it, but Luke also disappoints us, and above 
all Paul declares, that he had received di- 
rectly from the Lord instructions even for 
the church practice concerning this sacra- 
ment. We may therefore say, that if the 



64 THE LAST SUPPER. 

Saviour in this passage of Corinthians gives 
an explanation of his purpose in the institu- 
tion of the Supper, this passage should not 
be disregarded in the interpretation of the 
Synopsists. 

As to the form of this rite, it has already 
been remarked, that the breaking of bread, 
and the passing of several cups and singing 
of Psalms were usual at the Paschal feast. 
Our Lord gave a deeper meaning to this cus- 
tom, since he represented the breaking of 
bread and giving the wine, as the emblems of 
his sacrificial death on the cross. According 
to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the sup- 
per is regarded as almost an actual repetition 
of the sacrifice, — an opinion, which, the prac- 
tice of the primitive church, as well as the 
harmony of Scripture faith, utterly contra- 
dicts. The rite only represents figuratively 
the one sacrifice, by which he hath perfected 
forever them that are sanctified. 

The essence of the Lord's Supper lies in 
the word accompanying the outward rite, 
which as the Word of the Lord is Spirit and 
Life. It is especially important to observe 



THE LAST SUPPER. 65 

the expression, given only by Matthew and 
Mark ; " take, eat, drink." In these words, 
the receptivity is expressed as the part of 
the disciples, who represent the communi- 
cants. Christ is the dispenser, assuaging 
spiritual hunger and thirst with himself; the 
Church is nourished by him. From this 
connection it follows, that the Lord himself 
could not have partaken the bread and wine. 
It is not a parting meal, that is here spoken 
of, in which all partake the same food to- 
gether, in token of their union, but a pro- 
cess of nourishing, as of a child from its 
mother's breast, in which there can be no 
reciprocity. When Christ speaks of the 
bread and wine, as his body and blood, we 
are to understand him, not only as calling 
the bread and wine the emblems of his 
death, but as the means of imparting his 
spiritual, or glorified body, to the faithful 
ones around the sacramental table. 

According to this explanation of what is 

meant by the body of Christ, a question 

arises, how could Jesus, in founding 

the Holy Supper, speak of his glorified 

5 



66 THE LAST SUPPER. 

body, while he, as yet, had only a mortal 
body. The expression in Luke and Paul, 
the body given and the blood shed for you, 
seems to favor the idea, that it was not the 
glorified, but the natural, suffering, crucified 
body, which the Lord would communicate. 
But the most zealous defenders of this view 
will yet allow, that the Lord's body impart- 
ed the powers of eternal life, and could not, 
therefore, be like the perishable, sinful bodies 
of men. The opinion, that it was the Lord's 
crucified body, is important to them only so 
far as they are opposed to the idea of an 
ethereal, imaginary body, such as the Docetee 
asserted, and would maintain the real exist- 
ence of the body of Christ. And there is 
entire truth in this view; but this truth 
may be so expressed, as to maintain the 
reality and identity of the Lord's body, 
both before and after the resurrection, against 
all Docetic errors, and also to distinguish 
between the glorified and not glorified body 
of Christ. The communion of our Lord s 
flesh and blood could naturally proceed only 
from the former. But, if we suppose the 



THE LAST SUPPER. 67 

glorification of the Lord's body to have 
been gradually going on, then the efficacy 
of it, before the return from the dead, will be 
no more surprising, than that the Saviour 
should impart his spirit by a breath, al- 
though the Holy Spirit was poured out at a 
later period, on the day of Pentecost. In 
the mortal body, the immortal already rested) 
just as in the regenerate person the new man 
lives, although still veiled in the old. The 
resurrection was but as the freeing of the but^ 
terfly from the chrysalis, in which it had 
already long been formed. 

We now, for a moment, consider the ex^- 
pression, blood of the new covenant, which is 
found in Matthew and Mark, and to which, in 
Luke and Paul, the words, the new covenant 
in my blood, correspond. Both phrases 
are essentially the same. Both regard the 
peculiar relation of the blood of the Saviour 
to the new covenant. Is it asked, wherein 
consists this peculiar relation ? Evidently 
in the remission of sins, since without shed- 
ding of blood, there is no forgiveness. In 
the New Testament, under the divine for- 



68 THE LAST SUPPER. 

bearance, sin is no longer remembered, as 
under the economy of the Old Testament, 
but through the atonement of Christ, which 
his devoted death completed, sin was blot- 
ted out, while he bore the curse for us. 
Both the above expressions may be employed 
to denote the new relation between God and 
man, that was founded on the shedding of 
Christ's blood. The view, that our Lord rep- 
resents his death, as a covenant offering, (as 
stated by Dr. Paulus.) and not as a sin-offer- 
ing, is sufficiently contradicted by the decided 
expression, shed for the remission of sins. 
Luke and Paul have only the decided com- 
mand, " this do in remembrance of me." The 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, xi. 26, fixes 
the manner of celebration, and the period of 
its continuance. The former should have 
especial reference to the death, as the act in 
which the reconciling power of the Great 
High Priest is concentred ; the latter was 
to extend to his appearing. The feasi of 
the Holy Supper was to repeat symbolically 
the great act, that Golgotha, which com- 
pleted the world's atonement, and was thus 



THE LAST SUPPER. 



69 



to preach to the world, that the atonement 
for it had been made ; just as every sacrifice 
under the Old Testament, preached that 
Adam had fallen, and a renewal of human 
nature was necessary. While such a sacri- 
fice only awakes a longing for forgiveness of 
sin, the Holy Supper nourishes the soul 
with the living bread, which came down 
from Heaven to give life to the world. He 
only that is born of the body can partake of 
material food ; so he only, who is born of the 
spirit can enjoy the spiritual banquet. The 
Lord's Supper presupposes baptism as ne- 
cessary, but does not confound it with the 
Lord's Supper. As the act of birth is but 
once, while partaking of food may be many 
times repeated, so baptism is to be performed 
but once, while the Lord's Supper must be 
often celebrated. This view may seem to 
be opposed by the fact, that the Supper 
appears to have been instituted before the 
rite of baptism, and before our Lord's glori- 
fication. But when it is remembered, that 
baptism had been previously practised by 
John the Baptist and the Apostles, and that 



70 THE LAST SUPPER. 

Matthew, (xxviii. 18,) when he speaks of 
its being established by our Lord, refers to 
its establishment, as a permanent, universal 
custom for all nations, the difficulty disap- 
pears. Had Jesus established the Supper 
after his resurrection, as the Glorified One, 
this would have led to the error of the Do- 
cetae concerning the rite. The closer at 
hand this error appeared to be, the more 
carefully must all means be taken to destroy 
it, as the history of the first century shows. 
The object of this representation of the 
death of Christ, for the sins of the world, in 
the form of the sacred supper, can have a 
signification only as long as our Lord is sep- 
arate from his church. Upon his return in 
glory, the feast must be framed anew and 
differently. The conclusion of our Lord's 
address, according to Matthew and Mark, 
signifies this, wherein he declares, u that he 
will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the 
vine, until he drink it new with them in his 
Father's kingdom." From these words it 
may be supposed to follow, that the Lord 
himself partook of the sacramental supper. 



THE LAST SUPPER. 71 

But the words " my body," " my blood," 
oppose this view very strongly. The most 
simple thought is, that the expression, 
" drink again of the fruit of the vine," refers 
to the earlier partaking of the wine-cups, of 
which our Lord drank. Luke xxii. 16, par- 
ticularly refers to this, where the Paschal 
lamb is spoken of. Here it is plain, that the 
remark is made, not of the bread in the 
supper, but of the Passover, so that the 
sense is this, " in the kingdom of God, I will 
again celebrate the Passover with you." In 
regard to this idea, the custom has been 
according to the prevailing idealism, asham- 
ed of the resurrection and glorification of the 
flesh, to recognise merely a general expres- 
sion of joy : " There will we enjoy one 
another, more intimately and spiritually than 
here." They, who adopt this signification, 
should, however, be frank enough to ac- 
knowledge, that the expressions selected 
must be very liable to be mistaken. Es- 
pecially for those, who, as is said of the 
disciples, held low materialist ideas of the 
Messiah. They abide more by the gram- 



72 THE LAST SUPPER. 

matical truth, who think, that the Jewish 
idea of a feast shines forth, which is to take 
place in the Messiah's kingdom, where even 
the physical world is to be glorified. But it 
is more conformable to Scripture doctrine to 
say, that this idea of the supper of the Lamb, 
(feast of the marriage of the Lamb, Revela- 
tions xix. 9,) has its inner truth. Every fear 
on the ground of materialism is set aside 
sufficiently by the consideration, that in the 
world of glory, everything is glorified, and 
accordingly the idea of a social feast with 
the Lord, in the world of resurrection, will 
also be regarded as glorified. So regarded, 
this thought closes the supper most happily. 
For in these last words, the Lord, passing 
over the time of the gradual development 
of the kingdom of God through severe 
struggles, which grows up like a grain of 
mustard seed, until it fill the world, — 
reaching over this time, the Lord transports 
himself with his own into that perfect har- 
mony of existence, in which the outward 
creation seems to respond to the inner 
spirit, and Paradise is restored. In this 



THE LAST SUPPER. 73 

prospect, then, there is the best consolation 
for Jesus and his disciples at the coming 
hours of sorrow. 



74 AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 



SECTION II. 

AGONY OF JESUS IN GETHSEMANE, AND 
ARREST. 

(Matt. xxvi. 36-56; Mark xiv. 32-52; Luke xxii. 
40-53; John xviii. 1-11. 

At the end of the Supper, to which, as 
has been already remarked, the discourses, 
recorded by John, succeeded, and which 
were doubtless, uttered in the supper room, 
the Saviour hastens forth, together with his 
disciples, from the city, from which the 
grace of his presence had already departed. 
Jesus went over the brook Kidron to the 
Mount of Olives. The brook flows between 
the city and the Mount of Olives, and emp- 
ties into the Dead Sea. Here, or on the 
Mount of Olives, was a place with a garden, 
which Jesus had frequented with his disci- 
ples, and which was well known to Judas. 
To this the Lord went. Hardly had he ar- 
rived, when he withdrew into the garden, 



AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 75 

in deep solitude. The other disciples may 
have remained in the house of the friendly 
owner ; only three, — that trusty three, who 
were present at the Transfiguration, — fol- 
lowed him, and beheld the mighty agony of 
his soul, and could, therefore, measure the 
depth of the Lord's life, as they had meas- 
ured its height. 

We have now arrived at the moment, 
which we may consider, as the beginning of 
the sufferings of Christ, in the strict sense of 
the word, and it is proper to rest a moment 
from the consideration of details, and take 
a general survey of the development of the 
Saviour's life. It seems less wonderful to 
us, that suffering without measure now came 
upon the Holy One of God, since the noblest 
of the human race have been led through 
seasons of great need and severe struggle, 
and at the last, the sufferings of Jesus, which 
had long invisibly pressed upon him, merely 
took a visible shape. The contemplation of 
the sins of the world, the experience of the 
unbelief, the heartlessness, the unreasona- 
bleness of men, was a deep grief to the 



76 AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 

heart of the Son of God, long before those 
last moments of his earthly pilgrimage, in 
which his suffering reached its extreme de- 
gree. But, it appears surprising to the 
observer, that the Saviour did not stand 
unmoved amid such sorrows, like a rock 
amid the storm, and that on the contrary, 
he feared, lamented, and besought his Heav- 
enly Father for deliverance from the hour 
of anguish. If we compare the conduct of 
Jesus with that of previous sages, Socrates, 
for instance, or noble martyrs like Huss, 
Polycarp, and others, more firmness and 
courage seem to have been manifested by 
these, than we discover in Christ. In order 
to understand this circumstance, the follow- 
ing considerations are necessary. 

In the first place, it is not to be over- 
looked, that the Gospel discloses an idea of 
life, according to which stoical equanimity, 
severity, and rigidity, in respect to sorrow 
and pain, do not appear as the highest ex- 
cellence : it honors and much more care- 
fully cherishes the tender sentiments of pity, 
compassion, sorrowfulness, and is not asham- 



•AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 77 

ed of tears and the true, simple expression 
of anguish. Meanwhile, it is to be especially 
observed, that our Lord manifests no an- 
guish before the rough populace, who would 
have misunderstood his expressions of grief, 
but only in presence of his own trusty 
friends. The former would have been un- 
suitable, but not the latter. 

In the next place, the anguish of Jesus 
is not to be regarded as a shrinking from 
visible enemies and from physical pain ; * his 
agony was invisible, spiritual suffering, a 
despondency of soul, a struggle against the 
power of darkness. As in the beginning of 
his ministry, the Saviour was tempted by the 
enemy on the side of desire, now at the end, 
he was tempted on the side of fear. 

Finally, we must consider, that the suf- 



* The opinion, that the coming corporeal sufferings 
of Jesus brought on his agony, disturbs if it does not 
entirely destroy the whole meaning of his appearance. 
In this case, Christ would fall behind, not only many 
martyrs in strength of soul, but even many irreligious 
and immoral men, who have endured far more terrible 
martyrdom, without shrinking. 



78 AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 

fering of Jesus was not merely something, 
which belonged to the development of his 
own individual life, but that it stands in 
connection with the development of man- 
kind, in general. Christ suffered as the 
representative of collective humanity ; he 
bore their guilt, so that his sufferings have a 
character, specific, and to be compared with 
no other. 

Yet, not only is the anguish attributed to 
our Lord in the narration very surprising, 
but also the wavering in the inward disposi- 
tion of Jesus. If we compare the firm faith 
and victorious courage, which are expressed 
in the high-priestly prayer, (John xvii.) it is 
very striking, that, a few hours after, the 
Saviour can appear in such inward agony, 
as the passages before us represent him. On 
this account, we may readily see why Bret- 
schneider, and other commentators, should 
question the correctness of the narration. 
But a stricter examination of the claims of 
the passages to our faith, and a higher view 
of the spiritual nature, will lead us to be- 
lieve the narration, and even to see in it 



AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 79 

strong confirmation of the truth of the events 
recorded. 

The case is easily settled, if we can give 
some ground, upon which so sudden a wa- 
vering in the life of Jesus can be explained. 
Such a ground is afforded us by the phe- 
nomenon, which presents itself often in the 
lives of men of faith, (Paul, for instance, 
2 Corinthians, xii.) and which may, at least, 
serve for an analogy, that a sudden with- 
drawal of the higher powers of the spirit 
ensues, which determine the state of the 
mind. The evangelist expressly states, that 
such an abandonment took place on the 
cross. In the history of the temptation, we find 
ourselves compelled to presuppose it ; and 
nothing is plainer, than that we must adopt 
something similar here. The magnitude of 
the struggle of Jesus, on the one hand, as of 
his victory on the other hand, receives its full 
signification from such a supposition. While 
a Socrates could conquer, only while in 
full possession of his spiritual strength, 
the Saviour conquered the whole might of 
darkness, even when the tide of spiritual 



80 AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 

influence was low, and he was deserted by 
the signal aid, that had before been his 
support. 

The avowal of his sorrow, and the weep- 
ing entreaty to his disciples, to strengthen 
him by their presence and watching, forms 
a wonderfully touching contrast with the 
destiny of Jesus, and the object of his suf- 
ferings. He, the helper of the whole world, 
confesses to them, to whom he brought aid, 
his own need of aid, and sought from them 
the help, which they could not afford. For 
prayer, Jesus withdraws a little from his dis- 
ciples, and falls on his face upon the earth. 
In this prayer of the Redeemer, there is 
something striking in the entreaty, grounded 
on the power of the Almighty, to deliver 
him from the hour of anguish. Here, in 
conjunction with the certain knowledge of 
the Father's will, a wish seems to be ex- 
pressed in the Son, to depart from the will 
of the Father. But, in the first place, this 
prayer is not to be considered apart from the 
qualification ; " but not as I will, but as thou 
wilt." In the first entreaty, only the iveak- 



AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 81 

ness of the flesh is manifested, which the 
Saviour must share, or else his sufferings be 
only apparent and illusive ; in the second 
entreaty, lies the expression of the conquer- 
ing spirit. In the next place, it must not 
be overlooked, that the wish to be delivered 
from death and its pathway of pain, was not 
a sinful, but rather a pure, innocent, holy 
wish. Since death is the wages of sin, and 
as such, bitter to the sinful creature, for whom, 
however, it is called in a certain respect, a 
deliverance from want and sorrow, how 
much more must it raise a shudder in the 
pure, spotless soul of Jesus ! It would have 
betrayed a false fakir-like insensibility, if the 
Redeemer had gone forward to his death, 
without expressing, from his very life and 
marrow, the shudder of his holy human 
soul, before the dark vale of the grave. Far 
from marring his holy image, this feature is 
even necesssary to its perfection. A higher 
necessity now requires the overcoming of a 
feeling in itself entirely true. No compul^ 
sory will of the Father forced the Son to 
his bitter death* since the god-like will of 



82 AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 

the Son was one with the Father's ; but the 
conflict of absolute justice with mercy, in a 
word, the mystery of the work of human 
salvation demanded a satisfactory offering; 
and the voluntary entrance into this high 
necessity, which could not be without a se- 
vere struggle against human feeling, is found 
marked at this exalted, sacred moment. 
Upon the victory in Gethsemane, all was 
truly perfected, the will of the Father was 
taken into the very soul of Jesus, and as in 
a human struggle the mind is again at peace, 
when the determination is irrevocably made, 
we now find it to be so at this point in the 
Saviour's life. 

After this victory over the assault of dark- 
ness, Jesus returns to his three disciples and 
finds them, notwithstanding his exhortation, 
sleeping. Addressing Peter, as the speaker 
among them, he called them again to watch- 
ing and prayer, with the advice, that both 
lessened temptation. The connexion of 
ideas in this passage, is evidently this : — 
" Giving way to sorrow and its results press- 
es back the ruling power of the spirit, and 



AGONY IN GETHSEMANE. 83 

facilitates the way for the victory of the be- 
setting sin ; struggling against the over- 
whelming feeling, and prayer, which gives 
men a new power from the spiritual world, 
are security against temptation." Hence 
Christ remarks upon the weakness of human 
nature, which hinders the performance of 
what the nobler man chooses. 

For the second and for the third time, the 
Saviour goes to prayer, and upon his return 
again finds his disciples, beset, and entirely 
overcome by the power of darkness, sleeping. 
These three attacks by fear stand parallel 
to the three steps in the history of the temp- 
tation. Luke alone speaks of the angel 
strengthening the sufferer. We may class 
this passage among those, in which the word 
angel is not to be understood as denoting 
any outward appearance or person : it ap- 
peared only to Christ, and probably merely 
to his spirit within. By the "strengthen- 
ing " of the angel, we are only to understand 
the influence of spiritual powers, which was 
extended to the Saviour, struggling in the 
extremity of abandonment. As a physical 



84 ARREST OF JESUS. 

expression of the dreadful struggle of the 
Saviour, Luke speaks of " Sweat, as if it 
were drops of blood." Although accord- 
ing to medical statements, a bloody sweat 
may occur at the highest stage of anguish 
of soul, we must yet acknowledge, that in 
the words of Luke, no such thing is express- 
ly declared, but a comparison of the sweat 
to drops of blood. 

In Matthew xxvi. 47, and following verses, 
the act of the arrest of Christ is narrated. 
After Jesus had gone through the hard strug- 
gle, tranquillity was restored to him, so that 
before Judas, and the band who accompa- 
nied him, he appeared in striking majesty. 
Uncertain, whether the disciples of Christ 
would defend him, the priests had not only 
taken some of the temple guards with them, 
but also a detachment of R,oman soldiers. 
The soldiers had not only provided them- 
selves with weapons, but also with torches 
and lanterns. Since it must (on account of 
the Passover) necessarily have been moon- 
light, these torches were provided, in case 
that the sky should be overcast, or that Je- 



ARREST OF JESUS. 85 

sus should conceal himself in the house or 
the garden. According to Matthew and 
Mark, Judas, who led the company, had 
agreed upon a sign, by which he would point 
out the person of Jesus ; he was to kiss him. 
The words of Christ refer to the contrast, 
between the expression of love and friend- 
ship, and the sign of the base treachery of 
Judas: (Luke xxii. 48,) Judas, betrayest 
thou the Son of Man with a kiss ? John 
(xviii. 4, and the following verses,) gives us 
some more satisfactory account of what took 
place, on the approach of Judas with his 
band. The Lord, clearly aware of the sig- 
nification of that moment, went to meet 
them, asked them whom they sought, and 
gave himself up to them, saying, " I am he." 
Here John (xviii. 6,) states, that they started 
back, and fell upon the ground. We need 
not suppose a miracle in order to explain 
this circumstance ; but the person of Jesus 
himself is the miracle, and the majesty, 
which shone forth from it, could easily pro- 
duce a most powerful effect upon men, who 
probably had known of him, or heard him. 



OD ARREST OF JESUS. 

We find similar events in the life of men, 
before whom, as in the case of Marius, mere 
rough, physical force stood awed in subjec- 
tion. The account in Matthew of the kiss 
of Judas harmonizes, as Liicke has remark- 
ed, very plainly with John's account, if we 
consider that Judas approached alone in ad- 
vance of the others. When the Lord saw 
him, and Judas had kissed him, he went to 
meet the approaching band, in order to pro- 
tect the disciples, and on this occasion, the 
armed men fell down, overcome by the pow- 
er of his spirit. 

The attempt of one disciple to defend 
himself with the sword, spoken of in Luke, 
is so fully described, that he mentions the 
name of Peter as that disciple, (from whom 
indeed such rashness might be expected,) 
and also the name of the servant of the high 
priest, Malchus. John, in whose house Mal- 
chus was known, would readily give this in- 
formation. (John xviii. 15.) According to 
John vviii. 26, he was acquainted with the 
relatives of this Malchus. John and Luke 
remark, that it was the ri^ht ear that was 



ARREST OF JESUS. 87 

cut off, but only Luke speaks of the sudden 
healing of the wound. This circumstance 
best explains the fact of Peter's being able 
to escape with impunity ; astonishment at 
the cure would of course engross all the at- 
tention of the hostile band. According to 
John xviii. 11, our Lord, besides bidding Pe- 
ter put the sword in the scabbard, adds the 
significant words, "The cup, which my 
Father hath given me, shall I not drink it ? " 
Matthew gives the saying in more copious 
form. The incongruity of a long speech 
being made to Peter under these imminent 
circumstances, is done away, by the consid- 
eration, that the words were spoken during 
the cure. All attention was directed to it, 
and this enabled Jesus to give Peter the ne- 
cessary direction. 

In the first place, as regards the words of 
Jesus, " they who take the sword shall per- 
ish with the sword," they refer without 
doubt to Peter, according to Genesis ix. 6. 
Violent self-defence, against the ordinances 
of magistrates, is likened to murder. Paral- 
lel with this remark, " Simper ye thus far" 



88 ARREST OF JESUS. 

is to be considered ; which has been suppos- 
ed to refer to the hostile company, in the 
sense, "allow me time," until I cure the ear 
of Malchus. The words have a more sig- 
nificant reference to the disciples, u desist, 
thus far and no farther." 

In the next place the idea of the twelve 
legions of angels is very remarkable. The 
number twelve may have been selected in 
reference to the number of disciples, and the 
word " legion " refers evidently to the 
" heavenly host ; " so that in general the 
idea is, " Do you think that I need earthly 
aid from you, feeble ones ! while the heavenly 
aid of the hosts of God is at my com- 
mand ? " 

According to Luke xxii. 53, the significant 
expression here comes in, " This is your 
hour and the power of darkness" The 
interpretation of Kuinoel — " This is the 
hour given you by God, for the execution of 
your plans, and the power of your sins " — 
is without doubt correct in the first part, but 
as to the second part, the expression, " pow- 
er of darkness," does not apply to the sins 



ARREST OF JESUS. 89 

of the multitude. " Darkness " does not 
denote sins in this or that individual, for this 
is called " sin," " amartia" but denotes the 
element of sin in general, the opposite of 
light. At the moment in which the Holy 
One of God was led to the cross, by the 
sins of men, the power of evil had attained 
its highest point ; on reaching the cross, its 
power was destroyed, and its nothingness 
revealed, while the death of the righteous ex- 
piated the sins of the world. 

According to the prediction of the Lord, 
the disciples now dispersed. Mark (xiv. 51,) 
speaks of a young man lightly clad, who was 
seized upon, but who fled and left his linen 
garment behind him. It is in my mind most 
likely, that Mark here speaks of himself. 



90 EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 



SECTION III. 

EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS 
AND THE SANHEDRIM. PETER'S DE- 
NIAL. 

(Matt, xx vi. 57-75; Mark xiv. 53-72; Luke xxii. 
54-71; Johnxviii. 12-27.) 

The correct consideration of the scenes, 
which now present themselves to our eyes, 
requires a representation of the modes of 
administering justice among the Jews, at the 
time of Christ. It has already been remark- 
ed, that the Jews had lesser courts (called 
lesser Sanhedrim) in all their important ci- 
ties ; in all the cities, (as the Talmud states,) 
which contained over one hundred and twen- 
ty inhabitants. In Jerusalem, there were 
two of these. But the highest jurisdiction 
belonged to the great Sanhedrim of Jerusa- 
lem, which was composed of seventy-one 



EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 91 

persons. The origin of this tribunal has 
been derived from Moses, who appointed the 
seventy elders, who with him constituted an 
assembly of seventy-one. The name of 
" Sanhedrim," being derived from the Greek, 
of course was given to the assembly at a 
much later period. Perhaps Ezra founded 
this tribunal, although its name arose first 
under the Grseco-Syrian Dynasty. The 
constitution of the court was as follows : 
The officiating high priest was the president 
for the time being. They, who had former- 
ly been high priests, and the twenty-four 
principals of the classes of priests, and 
other considerable men, learned in the law, 
were members. They had a particular 
place for their meetings, although in affairs 
of emergency, they assembled at the house 
of the high priest, as was the case at the 
examination of Jesus. All important cases, 
especially all spiritual affairs, belonged to the 
cognizance of this supreme tribunal. Since 
they looked upon Jesus, as a false Messiah, 
they naturally brought his case before this 
tribunal. Had not their malice intended to 



92 EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 

put Christ to death, they might here have 
ended the process against him. For only 
forty years before the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, and only three years before our Lord's 
death, the Romans took away from the San- 
hedrim the jurisdiction over life and death, 
and on this account the delivering of the 
judgment was committed to Pilate. It is 
remarkable, that Christ was not led by the 
guard, to the officiating high priest, Caiaphas, 
but to his father-in-law, Annas. The latter 
had been formerly high priest, but, according 
to Josephus, was removed in the reign of 
Tiberius by the Procurator, Valerius Gratus. 
In his place Ismael was appointed, then 
Eleazar, the son of Annas, then Simon, the 
son of Camithus, and finally, in the year 
twenty-six, Joseph or Caiaphas, the son-in- 
law of Annas. In all probability, this An- 
nas, as formerly high piiest, and father-in- 
law of two others, was a person of great 
consequence. Perhaps he was the substi- 
tute to supply the place of the officiating 
high priest, in cases of need, and on that 
account, the most difficult questions would 



EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 93 

first be subjected to his decision. Perhaps 
the palace of Annas was so situated, that 
the guard reached it first with their captive. 
He seems to have been kept here a long 
while, until the Sanhedrim was assembled 
at the house of Caiaphas, the son-in-law of 
Annas. This opinion seems the more cred- 
ible, as it is still uncertain, whether Annas 
wore this dignity ; and since, moreover, no 
proper trial took place before him, it may be 
supposed, that he allowed them to bring Je- 
sus before him, rather to gratify his curiosi- 
ty, and only cursorily directed some ques- 
tions to him. But John refers, as he names 
the name of Caiaphas, to the early part of 
his narrative, where he first advised that 
one should be put to death for all, as an in- 
dication how this trial would terminate. 

The most difficult subject in this section is 
in harmonizing the four Evangelists. While 
John expressly states that Jesus was first led to 
Annas, and mentions subsequently the send- 
ing to Caiaphas, the Synopsists speak only 
of the trial before Caiaphas. Here they 
place the scene of Peter's denial, while ac- 



94 EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 

cording to John, it remains doubtful, wheth- 
er this took place in the palace of Annas or 
Caiaphas, since he makes mention of this 
occurrence both before and after the sending 
of Christ to Caiaphas. Formerly it has been 
attempted to remove this difficulty, by very 
violent means — by placing verse 24 (John 
xviii.) after the first clause of verse 13. It 
would be easier to consider the word " sent," 
in the twenty-fourth verse, as in the pluper- 
fect tense, and the verse would read, " Now 
Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas." 
According to this translation, all that is told 
of the questioning and denial of Peter would 
be placed in the palace of Caiaphas. This 
interpretation has been adopted by Tholuck, 
and presents no insurmountable difficulty, 
grammatically considered. But if this view 
be right, we must think that John has writ- 
ten very negligently. Read John's gospel 
by itself, and it would seem clearly as if he 
meant to state, that an examination had tak- 
en place before Annas, and also, that Peter 
had been in his palace. Without the Sy- 
nopsists, no one could understand the narra- 



EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 95 

tion otherwise. I think with Grotius and 
others, that John wished to correct, and 
complete the accounts of the Synopsists, 
and therefore brought the transactions, that 
took place before Annas, into distinct notice. 
The idea, that John was in error, cannot be 
entertained for a moment, because he was 
an eye-witness, and moreover narrates so 
circumstantially in this part of the history, 
as to state the relations of the servant of the 
high priest. What is said of the examina- 
tion by the high priest, (John xviii. 19- 
23,) bears no resemblance with that held be- 
fore Caiaphas, and cannot therefore be iden- 
tified with it. Hence comes it, that the Sy- 
nopsists, who were not present at the scene, 
and therefore derived their information from 
others, might have judged wrongly of the 
place, since both Annas and Caiaphas were 
high priests. When they heard, that this or 
that event took place before the high priest, 
they would of course think only of Caia- 
phas, the officiating priest, and would re- 
fer everything to him. John mildly cor- 
rects this mistake, but entirely passes over 



96 EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 

what had been expressly and sufficiently re- 
lated by the others — the distinct examina- 
tion before Caiaphas. 

According to our view, the whole order of 
incidents was this. When the guard first 
brought Jesus to the city, they led him to the 
house of Annas, which was nearest at hand ; 
partly in order that he might be kept here 
until the Sanhedrim should assemble, partly 
because Annas wished to see him, and speak 
with him. He then opened a conversation 
with Christ ; in consequence of the reply, 
a servant struck the Saviour ; and while 
Annas, who had satisfied his curiosity, and 
seen that nothing could be drawn from his 
replies, withdrew ; the coarse crowd exer- 
cised their indignities on the sacred person 
of Christ. Peter, under the protection of 
John, had pressed into the front court yard, 
but denied knowing the Lord, when he was 
urged to say if he knew him. One of these 
denials took place, at the moment in which 
Jesus was led away to Caiaphas : and there- 
fore Jesus could look upon him with that 
look, so full of meaning. Arrived before 



EXAMINATION OF JESUS. 97 

Pilate, the Saviour immediately enters upon 
his trial, and the sentence, and the leading 
away to Pilate, succeeded. Here therefore 
was no probable moment, in which the bar- 
barous mal-treatment of Jesus could have 
taken place. According to Matthew and 
Mark, it would seem, as if this had taken 
place before the Sanhedrim. But it is utter- 
ly incompatible with the dignity of this, the 
highest assembly of the country, that such 
outrages should be committed in its presence. 
Luke introduces the whole trial only sup- 
plementarily, and therefore his statement is 
of no importance to this point. But how 
compatible all seems, if we consider the in- 
dignity, which a servant was permitted to 
offer in presence of Annas, as a signal, 
which drew forth farther expressions of in- 
sult, after the withdrawal of Annas. Left 
alone with the prisoner, the common crowd 
of soldiers and temple guards might think 
they could insult him, although such a large 
company of guards did not go with him all 
the way to Pilate. The only thing that 
goes against this view is, that John, accord- 
7 



PETER S DENIAL. 



ing to universal opinion, was acquainted 
with Caiaphas, but not with Annas. But if 
we consider both high priests as so nearly 
related, it is evident, that in the acquaintance 
of one, the acquaintance of the other is im- 
plied. As to the use of the term high priest, 
(archiereus,) it is notorious, that the same 
term can be as well applied to those, who 
had formerly held the office, as to the officiat- 
ing incumbent. 

According to the order above stated, we 
now, in the first place, consider the denial 
of Peter and the examination of the Lord 
before Annas. The two events (John xviii. 
15- 18, 24 - 27) are here connected. Mass- 
es of soldiers and guards, together with the 
servants of the high priest, fill the front 
court yard. In a hall, which opened into 
the court yard, Annas probably convers- 
ed with the Saviour, while Peter was 
questioned, and as they led Christ to Caia- 
phas, the question was repeated. As regards 
" the other disciple" (verse 15,) there is no 
doubt, that John means himself. As to par- 
ticulars of Peter's denial, John again departs 



peter's denial. 99 

from the other Evangelists : since these men- 
tion three instances of denial, while he men- 
tions but two. It may readily be said, that 
John distinguishes two points in the second 
denial of Peter, (xxv. 26 ; ) first several asked 
him, " Art thou not one of his disciples ? " 
and then another servant spoke alone. Still 
a perfect coincidence is not made out in 
this way ; since, according to Matthew and 
Mark, the second question, as well as the 
first, comes from a damsel. Besides, Luke 
does not agree with Matthew and Mark, 
since Luke speaks of a servant, where they 
speak of a damsel ; and where they speak 
of all the bystanders, there he mentions an- 
other individual servant. The trouble of 
removing such trifling contradictions is not 
worth taking ; they may be received as they 
are given. They are a surety for the inde- 
pendence of the Gospel Histories, and there- 
fore they promote the objects of the Scrip- 
tures. Yet evidently, on account of the 
previous prophesy of Jesus, (Matt. xxvi. 
75,) the triple denial of Peter actually took 
place. John does not apparently intend to 



100 peter's denial. 

make a full narration, but only to state the 
locality correctly. The triple question of 
our Lord to Peter (John xxi.) refers back 
to Peter's triple denial. 

The palace of the high priest was, with- 
out doubt, a large, splendid building. It 
contained a court which the watch occupied, 
who had probably kindled a fire on account 
of the coldness of the night. This court 
lay lower than the main building, which was 
probably entered through a stair-case ; a col- 
onnade extended hence to the street ; through 
this colonnade, which it was usual to build 
with a covered roof, the passage led to the 
court ; here a damsel was placed as a door- 
keeper. This door-keeper seems to have 
known Peter in the court yard, who had 
first fled with the other disciples, but who 
soon followed Jesus at a distance, and was 
led on by John. She probably knew him by 
his mien, and the look of dismay, which he 
must have very strongly expressed, since he 
made such a general impression. He had 
followed his Lord, to see where the affair 
would terminate, and he evidently expected 



peter's denial. 101 

the worst. The door keeper looked him 
sharply in the face, and inquired about his 
connexion with the Nazarene. Here Peter 
denied. Meanwhile, in order to remove 
himself from this dangerous place, he hast- 
ened into the porch, in which was the door 
which led to the street ; here the other dam- 
sel asked him, and the weak disciple, with 
an oath, again denied. This new question 
prevented Peter's leaving the court yard ; 
he approached the blazing fire, and seated 
himself with affected confidence, among the 
servants of the temple, who were keeping 
watch, (John xviii. 18-25.) Peter remain- 
ed here quiet and unobserved, an hour long- 
er, (Luke xxii. 59.) This probably embold- 
ened him to ask questions about Jesus, and 
now they all recognised him for a Galilean, 
by his speech. Besides, a kinsman of Mal- 
chus, whose ear Peter had cut off, and who 
himself had been at the capture of Jesus, 
declared that he knew Peter. Again Peter 
denied his Lord. The cock crew. This 
predicted sign called to the disciple's mind 
the warning words of Christ, and repent- 



102 peter's denial. 

ance gained dominion over him. Luke re- 
marks, that the Lord turned, and his look 
pierced the heart of Peter. All this accords 
with John, according to whom Jesus was 
led to Caiaphas, when Peter's last denial 
took place. He must therefore have passed 
through the court and the porch, so that he 
could see the disciple. On the withdrawal 
of his Master, Peter hastened away, and 
wept bitterly. 

In this history of Peter, this first import- 
ant figure, which represents all the weak 
and fearful among believers, meets us in the 
rich picture, which the Lord's Passion un- 
folds before us. The most energetic, the 
most zealous among the disciples, appears 
thus weak, thus wretched; the spirit was 
willing, the flesh was weak. Touching in- 
deed is the artless simplicity, with which the 
Evangelists relate this deep downfall of the 
chief among them. They do not soften 
down the disgrace, they frankly say, that a 
damsel asked him. But as they do not de- 
fend him, so they do not reproach nor won- 
der at him ; without comment, they state 



peter's denial. 103 

the bare fact. But we need not now for- 
bear reflection, and must ask ourselves the 
question, how was it that Peter, that strong- 
willed disciple, whose fall Christ had so ex- 
pressly predicted, so distinctly denied his 
Lord, even while no danger threatened him ? 
The denial would be conceivable, if death 
had stood before his eyes ; but there was 
nothing said of the followers of Christ, dur- 
ing the investigation, and Peter was terri- 
fied at the question of a simple maiden. 
A psychological enigma seems to be attach- 
ed to the outward consideration of these 
circumstances. But if we press on into the 
inner depths of the scene, it will be found, 
that some inner causes may be recognised, 
as explaining the conduct of Peter, as was 
the case in respect to the agony of Jesus in 
Gethsemane. It was the hour of the pow- 
er of darkness, which in so inconceivable 
a manner lamed and covered over the spirit- 
ual powers of the disciple, so that he could 
not only deny Jesus, but was even yet in 
danger, after that he had once denied him. 
A temptation, more than merely human, 



104 CHRIST BEFORE ANNAS. 

overcame Peter, and one which was neces- 
sary to cure him of his self-sufficient pride, 
as also to make him a mirror for others ; a 
temptation, which our Lord teaches us to 
pray to be delivered from, and which Peter 
might have escaped, if he had before hum- 
bled himself at the word of his Lord. 
Thus the Lord made use of the most vari- 
ous means to lead his disciples to perfection 
of spiritual life ; as this fall served for the 
salvation of Peter, so did his preservation 
keep the others from the same. As the fall 
led the proud Peter to humility, so must 
preservation, in the danger in which Peter 
lay, fix the other disciples immovably in faith 
in the grace of their Lord. 

We now come to the conversation of An- 
nas with Christ, (John xviii. 19-23.) This 
was plainly a manifestation of mere curiosi- 
ty, rather than a formal trial. As subse- 
quently Herod, so now the high priest wish- 
ed to see the wonderful man, and learn 
something surprising of him. Hence the 
form of Christ's reply. This would not 
have been proper in a regular judicial trial ; 



CHRIST BEFORE ANNAS. 105 

the accused is not only bound to submit to 
the examination of a magistrate, if he be 
justly accused, but even if he be accused 
wrongfully. We observe this deference to 
the magistracy always most tenderly observed 
by our Lord ; he replied duly even to wrong- 
ful and malicious judges ; or where all de- 
fence was in vain, he was silent. But here 
was no judicial procedure, and since Annas 
was no longer high priest, the Lord could 
therefore fitly reprove his equally obtrusive 
and malicious curiosity. The conduct of 
Christ at the barbarous insult of the servant 
is remarkable. We have in this an authen- 
tic interpretation of the command in Mat- 
thew v. 38. As has already been remarked, 
it would have been soliciting abuse, if the 
Saviour had not here claimed justice, since 
the insult was given in the presence of the 
master of the servant, who was bound to re- 
buke it himself. But later, when he was 
abandoned, the lonely prey to rude violence, 
nothing remained to the Saviour, but the 
weapons of silence, since an appeal to jus- 
tice, addressed to insolence, is only a fresh 



106 CHRIST BEFORE ANNAS. 

provocation. This one deed of violence 
(probably after Annas had withdrawn) was 
a warrant for many more. It is wonderful, 
that the spirit of prophesy did not hold it 
beneath its dignity to predict these outrages 
in detail, and to indicate the state of soul, 
which the Holy One of God would present 
to the profane multitude. " The Lord God 
will help me," says the Messiah in Isaiah ; 
" therefore shall I not be confounded ; there- 
fore have I set my face like a flint, and know 
that I shall not be ashamed." Here is immov- 
able faith in the eternal love of God, ex- 
pressed even in the deepest abandonment. 
And the prophet has also painted in another 
place the unutterable gentleness and patient 
resignation, which could be provoked by no 
indignity in the words, " He was oppressed, 
and he was afflicted ; yet he opened not his 
mouth ; he is brought as a lamb to the 
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers 
is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." To 
estimate the grandeur of this conduct, we 
must always bear in mind, that the insulted 
one was the Eternal Word of the Father, 



THE SANHEDRIM. 107 

that he became flesh, and endured all this 
for our sakes. 

After the account of the leading the Lord 
away to Caiaphas, follows the formal trial 
before the Sanhedrim. According to Luke, 
the Sanhedrim was assembled, as soon as it 
was day. Matthew and Mark place the 
passing of sentence, and John places the 
leading away to Pilate, first in the morning. 
But it should be considered, that, as the first 
dawn of day may be called morning, there 
is no necessary disagreement between the 
several statements. Beside, the calling to- 
gether the Sanhedrim must have taken con- 
siderable time, so that the greatest part of 
the night must be thereby spent. As re- 
gards the place of this important delibera- 
tion, the investigation of the case of Christ 
came regularly before this tribunal. It had 
not only permission to prove, according to 
the word of God, all pretensions to the au- 
thority of prophets and the Messiah, but an 
express obligation to do it. But they were 
extremely false in arresting Jesus, since by 
their questions they showed they had the 



108 THE SANHEDRIM. 

clearest information of his dignity as Mes- 
siah, and, even against their better knowledge, 
sought false witnesses against the Holy One 
of God. Evidently they had already provi- 
ded false witnesses against him, because 
these could not well have been procured in 
the night. In this, ill-will was evidently 
manifested towards Christ, and he therefore 
determined to be silent toward their accusa- 
tions ; on their continuing to question him, 
he first replies to his unjust judges, faithful 
to the duty of a subject. Now more false 
witnesses against Jesus came in, but their 
testimony was unlike, and they contradicted 
each other in their allegations. But finally 
two false witnesses came forward, who cited 
the saying of Christ, in regard to the destruc- 
tion of the temple, in proof of his guilt. 
These persons indeed cited the remark, 
which Christ had actually made, but they 
wished to deduce a false idea from it, and 
they were therefore false witnesses. 

While Caiaphas, who presided over the 
assembly, saw that nothing was to be gained 
in this way, he sought to remove the voice- 



THE SANHEDRIM. 109 

less, yet eloquent testimony of Christ, against 
the false witnesses. He conjured him to 
declare, whether he was the Christ, the Son 
of the living God, which question the Lord 
unequivocally answered in the affirmative. 
Immediately before the decisive question and 
reply, the remark in Luke xxii. 67, 68, 
should be placed, in which the Saviour 
states the motive of his silence. 

In the question of the high priest, the 
phrases, " Christ " and " Son of God" are 
brought together. But since the name, 
" Son of God" stands here last, nothing is 
more simple, than to see in it a closer defini- 
tion of the first expression. But because 
the high priest used the name, " Son of 
God," it does not follow that he was univer- 
sally known by this title ; it is rather to be 
understood thus, " Art thou the Son of God, 
whom you declare yourself to be ? " The 
sequel shows that the high priest, like the 
people before, saw blasphemy in this, which 
was not the case with the declaration, that 
he was the Messiah. The public oath of 
Christ, that he was the Son of God, with 



HO THE SANHEDRIM. 

the full declaration of his future coming in 
glory, is very important, because we see in 
it how the command of the sermon on the 
Mount (Matt. v. 35) is to be understood, 
and that it does not refer to the faithful, in 
their relations to the world. This passage 
is important moreover, because Jesus declares 
publicly, before the highest theocratical as- 
sembly, that which he had before taught 
only privately. Jesus thereby stated the 
whole idea of the Messiah, as it were a cer- 
tainty, that all had attained its fulfilment in 
him. Immediately the Sanhedrim was led 
by this remark, to view the importance of 
the moment in all its extent ; they must 
know, at this hour, they were judging the 
king of their nation, him of whom all the 
prophets had predicted. This public decla- 
ration of the Saviour, therefore, decides the 
extent of their guilt. In this sublime mo- 
ment, the words of Christ attain a regal ma- 
jesty, he speaks as the Lord of Heaven, and 
not as a helpless defendant before an earth- 
ly tribunal. To the declaration of his Mes- 
siahship, the threat of his future return fol- 



THE SANHEDRIM. Ill 

lows. Here a sublime and touching con- 
trast is presented, as so often occurs in the 
Gospel narrative. The judge of the living 
and the dead stands accused before an hu- 
man judge, and is condemned by him ; but, 
at this moment, the Saviour opens to view 
his own majesty, in which he, as judge of 
the whole world, will appear to his earthly 
judges. In his expression, the idea of the 
sublimest dignity is given — of a participa- 
tion in God's government of the universe. 
This was known to Jesus in the depth of his 
humiliation, and he dared declare it to his 
judges. If we consider the holy zeal, and 
spiritual power, in which the Lord must 
have spoken these words, we can suppose, 
that a sad anticipation must have thrilled 
through the priests, that he spoke truly. 
But they had gone too far to retract. In 
affected sorrow, the high priest rent his robe, 
and declared Jesus a blasphemer, and the 
Sanhedrim condemned the Lord of Glory ; 
him, who loved them even unto death, they 
hated unto death. They did not know cer- 
tainly, that he was the Messiah, and they 



112 THE SANHEDRIM. 

might have regarded the capture of Christ 
as a proof, that he was not he ; much less the 
Son of God; but their impure heart was 
still struck with the splendor of his divine 
nature ; and only because they had closed 
their spiritual vision, in fear of seeing too 
much, and being obliged to abandon their 
sinful practices, they did not arrive at entire 
clearness of conviction. Hence their un- 
certainty was their guilt, and it was the ter- 
rible curse of this guilt, to become, in their 
blindness, the murderers of the Holy One of 
God. 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 113 



SECTION IV. 

TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

(Matt, xxvii. 1-31; Mark xv. 1-20; Luke xxiii. 1- 
25 j John xviii. 28-xix. 16.) 

The Sanhedrim was still in session on the 
night of the arrest of Jesus, when, as the 
morning drew near, the tribunal condemned 
him to death, and therefore led him to Pi- 
late, since the right over life and death was 
taken away from the Jews. Here now 
(Matt, xxvii. 3-10) Matthew introduces 
the history of the unhappy Judas, who forms 
the second figure in the sublime picture of 
the Passion History. We here bring to- 
gether all that refers to him and his spiritual 
condition. 

Judas. We first consider his external his- 
tory. When Judas had gained the result of 
his treachery, he shuddered at it, and, stung 
by remorse, brought the silver to the chief 
priests. His repentance sprang from the 
8 



114 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

consciousness of having betrayed an inno- 
cent being, such as he knew Christ to be. 
With the coldness of iron, the hypocritical 
Pharisees repulse the unhappy man, and lay 
all the guilt upon him, and declare them- 
selves innocent of the deed, although they 
were in the highest degree culpable. Driven 
to despair by these comfortless words, he 
threw down the money and went and hanged 
himself. 

The passage in Matthew, in which Judas 
is said to have hanged himself, seems to 
contradict Acts i. 18, in which he is said to 
have fallen headlong, and burst asunder in 
the midst, and his bowels to have gushed 
out. The contradiction vanishes, by sup- 
posing that, in hanging himself, he fell with 
such violence as to tear open his bowels. 

After Judas had cast away the silver, the 
Priests give a fresh example of their hypoc- 
risy. Since it was the price of blood, they 
would not place the money in the treasury 
of the temple, lest they should defile them- 
selves, but they did not come to a conscious- 
ness of their sins, in having condemned the 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 115 

innocent. They bought a field to bury 
strangers in. 

A few words more upon the personal 
character of Judas. The question imme- 
diately presents itself; upon what ground 
did our Lord call Judas into his company ? 
Was it not solely by this call, that the terri- 
ble sin, by which he fell, was made possible ? 
The obvious answer, that Jesus was mis- 
taken in his choice, is to be rejected, be- 
cause it contradicts what is expressly de- 
clared of the knowledge of our Lord. He, 
who knew what was in man, knew what 
was in Judas, and that he must betray him. 
We must therefore examine more deeply 
into the question. It is none the better for 
men, if the evil, that is in the germ within 
them, never reaches its actual development ; 
had Judas not actually betrayed Jesus, this 
would have made no difference in his real 
character. And the company of Christ might 
have been made a means of destroying the 
seeds of evil in his heart ; in this respect, 
he is situated precisely like all others, to 
whom abundant spiritual aids are offered,. 



116 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

which they do not make use of. It may be 
said, that it would have been better for him 
not to have attained these means, but we 
must remember that, without them, all possi- 
bility of help would have been taken away. 
Yet there is another difficulty, for Judas ap- 
pears to constitute a case by himself, inas- 
much as he lay under a necessity of doing 
the impious deed. According to prophecy, 
Jesus was to be put to death, and on his 
death the salvation of the world was ground- 
ed ; it therefore appears, as if some one must 
betray him, and as if Judas therefore had 
only the misfortune to be obliged to perform 
this part, but that the guilt was not his. This 
observation leads us to the oft-repeated con- 
sideration of the connexion between liberty 
and necessity. In Matt. xxvi. 24, the Sa- 
viour speaks of the necessity of his death, 
but yet lays the whole blame upon Judas, 
or, in other words, declares that he had acted 
freely. We can arrive at no new discoveries 
by perplexing ourselves upon this subject ; 
the human mind always comes to the oft- 
repeated conclusion, that in God all things 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 117 

are necessary, in man all is free, and that 
accordingly the knowledge of God of the 
development and actions of man is but the 
necessary knowledge of them as/ree beings. 
The same difficulty, that meets us in the case 
of Judas, occurs in considering every sinful 
life ; and therefore the history of Judas is 
not in this respect peculiar. If we maintain 
in- reference to him, that his election was 
not accidental, but that Jesus, according to 
his deep knowledge of their inner natures, 
made choice of the twelve ; then it is clear, 
that he could not exclude Judas. Since his 
high call placed him in a situation, which 
gave him a possibility of salvation, on the 
other hand, there was another possibility 
given, which by his own free will was made 
a reality, so that he refused the proffered 
aid, and threw himself into the gulf of per- 
dition. 

If we look at the gradual development of 
his sinful life, we find the Scripture assigns 
as his great besetting sin — avarice. This 
sin is called by Paul the root of all evil. 
We easily see what is meant by this, if we 



118 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

consider that the nature of avarice is noth- 
ing else than the most selfish covetousness ; 
considered as heaping up outward goods, it 
appears only in its coarsest form ; spiritually 
considered, it is that sinful disposition, that 
seeks to appropriate all things to self. Doubt- 
less all the activity of Judas, on account of 
the kingdom of God, rested on the hope of 
his obtaining something great in it. Vain 
wishes of various kinds undoubtedly ap- 
peared in the heads of the other disciples, 
but their hearts were filled with a love, far 
other than for themselves. The plan of Ju- 
das was developed no doubt at first gradu- 
ally. The little acts of treachery in which 
he allowed himself, and after which he still 
kept the company of the Holy One, without 
making amends and confessing his sin, hard- 
ened his heart gradually, and brought him 
within the influence of the power of dark- 
ness. When now the hour came, in which 
this had full sway, and poured hellish 
thoughts into his heart, then the power of 
resistance failed ; the pieces of silver, which 
the priests offered him, dazzled his perverted 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 119 

sense. Long, perchance, the better part may 
have struggled within him with these devilish 
thoughts, but the chains of darkness had al- 
ready bound him; — he submitted. The 
tragic end of the unfortunate disciple, and 
the rise of penitence upon view of the con- 
sequences of his deed, have in modern times 
induced many to extenuate his guilt, and to 
ascribe to him this or that milder motive for 
the deed. Such attempts, seen from one 
side, certainly manifest the kind disposition, 
which strives to palliate our brother's sins ; 
but when viewed on the other side, they ap- 
pear manifestations, and not the only in- 
stances, of a deficient moral sense, and of 
a reluctance to look the whole magnitude of 
sinful conduct full in the face, because the 
root of the same may be found in our own 
bosoms. Mild charity of judgment united 
with that full power of truth, which ex- 
presses itself boldly, and calls evil evil, is 
found only among those faithful hearts, who 
have learned to recognise sin in all its mag- 
nitude, and to overcome it by the Saviour's 
aid. Had true repentance been aroused in 



120 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

Judas, he would have pronounced sentence 
against himself, and called his offence, as it 
truly was, a fearful, devilish deed, which 
could have been only the fruit of a whole 
life of sin. His weak regret was merely 
fright at the consequences of his crime, and 
nothing but despair could result from it. If 
we adhere to this strictly moral view of the 
conduct of Judas, we must attribute to it an 
uncommon character. Regret for the deed, 
although it is a fearful proof of his infidelity, 
shows clearly, that his nobler self was not 
wholly dead. And his self-murder, that new 
sin, produced by the first, proves him differ- 
ent from that brutal class of beings, who can 
be satisfied with the quiet enjoyment of what 
they have stolen. Common men become 
little villains, when they resign themselves 
to the power of darkness ; great characters 
become great villains, when they allow sin 
to prevail over them. Although it may be 
thought, that Judas brought up in his mind 
many excuses for his treachery, that his vani- 
ty had been wounded by the rebuke of Je- 
sus, that his grasping soul desired a speedier 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 121 

manifestation of the kingdom of God, and 
that he was persuaded, that by the delivering 
of Jesus into the hands of the enemy, this 
event would be hastened, and the Saviour 
freed by a miracle : his crime is not essen- 
tially altered by such considerations. It 
takes its terrible character not from the out- 
ward action, but from the inward disposi- 
tion, which was the root from which it grew. 
This disposition consisted in alienation from 
God, want of faith and love, inordinate at- 
tachment to the world and to self; this one 
sin became the mother of others, and his 
end was, that he went to his oivn place. 
(Acts i. 25.) Could we suppose, that Peter, 
in his fiery, self-willed nature, had come to 
the opinion, that by delivering Christ into 
the enemy's hand, he might force him to 
reveal his majesty ; could we suppose this, 
we must still allow, that, notwithstanding the 
outward resemblance, there would be an es- 
pecial difference between the inward char- 
acter of his conduct and that of Judas. 
Since, supposing it had been so, what would 
Peter's feelings have been, had the Saviour 



122 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

been condemned, as after the treachery of 
Judas ? Unutterable sorrow would have 
seized him ; but because all his perversities 
had been well and sincerely meant, he would 
not have lost faith in Divine Love ; his sin 
would not have led him to a comfortless de- 
spair, but to true and faithful repentance, 
and so his deed would not have been made 
the mother of new disobedience, but a source 
of thorough regeneration. 

Pilate. We are now in a position where 
we can take a deeper view of the character 
of Pilate. We consider him as the third 
important figure in the picture of the last 
hours of Jesus. We turn from Peter the 
weak, and Judas the fallen believer, to the 
public opposers of our Lord, and find in Pi- 
late a man of the world, who is not devoid 
of sensibility to divine impressions, (of which 
the Pharisees show no symptoms,) but sunk 
in the skepticism of the higher class of so- 
ciety of that age. He is so bound down by 
worldly considerations of all kinds, as to 
sacrifice his conscience to the circumstances, 
which were his god. Pontius Pilate was 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 123 

the fifth Procurator of Judea, the successor 
of Valerius Gratus. In the thirteenth year 
of Tiberius, he attained his dignity. The 
Procurator of Judea was subordinate to the 
Proconsul of Syria, who resided in Cesarea. 
According to Josephus, Pilate must have ex- 
ercised much oppression and cruelty against 
the Jews. He may have been induced to 
this, by the frequent disturbances of the peo- 
ple and by the fear of Tiberius ; partly too, 
because it was the prevalent custom of the 
Roman dignitaries to indulge themselves in 
all manner of extortions, in the Provinces. 
He was susceptible to the influences of the 
Divinity ; he believed in Christ, even against 
his own will. But in part his skepticism, 
which was so common in the nobility of his 
day, and in part his fear of man, brought 
on his fall. 

According to John, Pilate immediately in- 
quires into the grounds of the arraignment 
of Jesus. He might have heard already 
many things about Jesus, (which his wife's 
dream seems to show,) and have known that 
the Jews persecuted him on religious grounds. 



124 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

He therefore tells them to lead him before 
the Sanhedrim, and punish him according to 
their own laws. They reply by declaring, 
that he had been condemned to death by 
that body, but that the execution of the sen- 
tence did not belong to them. It has al- 
ready been remarked, that Josephus and the 
Rabbins unanimously declare, that the Jews, 
forty years before the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, were deprived of the power of inflict- 
ing capital punishment. 

The Jews did not use the punishment of 
crucifixion, which the Romans inflicted upon 
great criminals, who were not Roman citi- 
zens. This form of punishment, then, must 
be considered as the consequence of leading 
Jesus before the Roman tribunal. Had Pi- 
late been more complaint, and condemned 
Jesus on religious grounds, he would proba- 
bly have delivered him to the Jews to be 
stoned ; but since the Jews saw themselves 
compelled to appeal to political considera- 
tions, Pilate was obliged to pass judgmen 
according to the Roman law. This was 
very important in the view of John, since a 



nt 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 125 

prophecy of Christ, regarding the manner of 
his death, was thereby fulfilled, (xviii. 32.) 
This prophecy was not important, merely as 
the foretelling of an accidental event, but 
because crucifixion may be regarded as a 
very significant symbol, and because the 
crucifixion is actually connected with the 
resurrection. As terrible as this kind of 
punishment is, it yet does not destroy or 
dismember the bodily organization, like ston- 
ing and other capital punishments. The 
Divine Wisdom permitted that the Son of 
God should die in this way, in order to save 
his holy body from mutilation. 

The conversation of Christ with Pilate, 
shows (John xviii. 33) that, at first, political 
affairs were not under consideration. The 
conversation related to the idea of the king- 
dom of the Messiah, from which it evidently 
follows, that they had accused him only as a 
false Messiah. The same appears also in 
Matthew and Mark. Luke, on the contrary, 
introduces the political element in the be- 
ginning, which ought to be transferred to 
the end of the trial. When Pilate saw the 



126 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

Lord in great majesty answering nothing to 
all the accusations, he wondered at such ex- 
traordinary conduct. He then caused Je- 
sus to be led away from the thronging crowd 
into the palace, and held a private conversa- 
tion with him. 

We must now strive to obtain an accurate 
idea of the proceedings of Pilate with Christ. 
The Procurator inhabited the old palace of 
Herod, a large and magnificent building. 
Before this palace stood the tribunal upon 
which Pilate sat, while he treated with the 
Jews. But in order to speak with Jesus 
alone, he retired several times into the pal- 
ace. This, like the abode of Annas, had 
a court, in which a cohort of soldiers was 
sationed. A portico, through which a door 
led, enclosed this towards the street. 
Through this the Jews dared not enter, for 
fear of defiling themselves; they therefore 
remained without around the judgment seat. 
The building with the court is called, by the 
Evangelists, Pretorium. 

As soon as Pilate had withdrawn into the 
Pretorium, (probably into the court,) and 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 127 

had called Jesus to him, he asked, whether 
he was the King of the Jews. Our Lord's 
reply was another question, " askest thou 
this of thyself ? " This leads us to sup- 
pose, that in the public accusation, be- 
fore brought, the expression, " King of 
the Jews," had not been introduced. 
It was therefore important to Christ, in order 
to know the state of Pilate's mind, to un- 
derstand the sense in which he used this 
expression ; whether as a Roman, in the 
simple outward meaning of a political ruler, 
or according to the Jewish idea of a theo- 
cratical regal Messiah. Pilate hereupon open- 
ly declared that he was no Jew, and he 
could not decide upon the religious questions 
of the Jews, but that the high priests had 
led him before the tribunal to be punished. 
When Jesus now saw, that Pilate rightly un- 
derstood the state of the circumstances, 
and no misunderstanding was to be feared, 
he openly declared, that he was king, and 
had a kingdom. The power of this king- 
dom, however, he describes negatively ; my 
kingdom is not of this world. The truth 



128 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

of this struck the mind of Pilate at once ; 
for Jesus had suffered himself to be arrested 
without making the least resistance to the 
authority of the magistracy, and therefore 
proved that he had no hostile undertaking 
in view. The expression, " my kingdom is 
not of this world" has often been regarded 
as limiting the kingdom of Christ to the in- 
ner and moral world. But the relation of 
the kingdom of Christ toward the world, is 
all that is expressed : no limit is assigned to 
the extent of the kingdom of God. Con- 
sidered only as the kingdom of truth, it must 
necessarily tend to become the only and all- 
prevailing kingdom, both inward and out- 
ward. 

From the idea of a kingdom, Pilate im- 
mediately conceives the notion of a king, 
and repeats the question to Jesus, whether 
he considered himself as such ; to which 
Christ simply assented. Many expositors, 
Tholuck among them, see nothing but 
mockery and scorn in this question of Pilate ; 
but the seriousness of our Lord's reply seems 
to contradict this. The whole of Pilate's 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 129 

subsequent conduct shows, that his heart 
was touched. The character of Jesus ap- 
peared to him imposing ; he at least per- 
ceived something noble and dignified in his 
person. The stricter definition, which our 
Lord gives to his declaration, embraces the 
idea of king in its fullest and most profound 
signification. He places its origin above 
this world, whereby his "king" is designa- 
ted as more than earthly. He now comes 
forward as a conqueror for truth, who 
forms his own true kingdom, or as an absent 
monarch, who regains possession of his king- 
dom. Every one, who belongs to his king- 
dom, (bears the truth in himself, is born of 
it,) hears his voice, and arrays himself under 
his banner. This expression evidently offer- 
ed an opportunity to Pilate to acknowledge 
himself for a friend of truth, and a subject 
of him, who is truth itself. The question 
may very naturally be asked, " who in this 
sinful world can be said to be of the truth 1 " 
If we compare John x. 14, we shall find 
that this expression does not denote sinless- 
ness, (since the Apostles heard the word of 
9 



130 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

Christ and were not sinless, as the example 
of Peter full well shows,) but only suscepti- 
bility to the truth. There are unfeeling, 
dead hearts, in whom the voice of truth 
raises no response, and even wakes opposi- 
tion ; there are others again, whose inmost 
soul resounds, when a tone of truth reaches 
them, while they feel that it alone can satis- 
fy their secret aspirations. The Saviour, the 
Lord and King of Truth, calls all such to 
himself, his will strives to rule unrestrained 
in their hearts. Pilate, as a scholar of the 
Greek Philosophy, knew very well that the 
Lord used the word truth in its highest and 
absolute sense, but was skeptical as to the 
possibility of attaining to absolute truth. 
Like so many of the noblest men of that 
remarkable age of commotion, Pilate had 
fallen into skepticism ; # he had gone through 
the circles of the systems of philosophy 
without finding the truth. This despair of 
the truth is expressed by the question, what 
is truth? So far from finding scorn or 

*Vide Pliny. 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 131 

mockery in this expression, we should rather 
consider it as the sorrowful indication of the 
desolation of his spirit. The Roman, moved, 
broke off the conversation, and he, the heath- 
en, defended the Royal Messiah against the 
Jews, the people of God, the peculiar peo- 
ple, who breathed nothing but revenge 
against the Holy One of God. He proposed 
to them, that according to the custom of re- 
leasing a prisoner at the Feast, he should 
release to them the imprisoned Jesus, the 
Christ. The question here occurs, whether, 
according to the account of Luke, this prop- 
osition of Pilate to release Jesus ought not 
to be placed after the sending him away to 
Herod. We speak of no formal contradic- 
tion between Luke and John, because John 
does not mention the sending away to Herod 
at all ; John seems to imply only, that the 
proposal in regard to freeing Jesus immedi- 
ately followed the events we have been con- 
sidering. But if we consider, that John nar- 
rates with far more particularity and care 
than Luke, and if we consider that the po- 
litical accusations flowing from the first refu- 



132 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

sal of Pilate to condemn Christ, first gave 
occasion to send him away to Herod ; it be- 
comes probable that the whole scene took 
place before the sending of Christ to Herod. 
As to the custom of releasing a prisoner on 
a feast-day, it is doubtful whether it was of 
Roman or Jewish origin. According to 
Livy, at the Roman lectisternia, all prison- 
ers were released from bonds. In the case 
at hand, only one appears to be restored to 
freedom. It is therefore more likely that 
the custom was a Jewish one. It is so nat- 
ural a custom, that it even now prevails in 
many states, especially among the Orientals. 
In Western Empires, the same thing takes 
place upon accessions to the throne. 

Baraebas. Together with the Saviour, 
another prisoner was now proposed for de- 
liverance ; one, who had, in a tumult, com- 
mitted a murder. The name of this man, 
of whom nothing else is known, was Barab- 
bas. It is remarked, that three manuscripts 
and the Armenian, and one Syriac version 
besides, assign him the name Jesus. These 
considerations, together with a statement of 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 133 

Origen's, make it highly probable, that Je- 
sus Barabbas was the name. This father 
of the Church shows how this reading was 
probably lost. It was thought unfitting, 
that the murderer should bear the holy name 
Jesus, and therefore the word Barabbas only 
was retained in the text. It is remarkable, 
that the question is framed as if there were 
two of the name of Jesus ; " will you that I 
release unto you the Jesus who is called 
Christ, or him that is called Barabbas ? " The 
saying seems applicable here ; ludit in huma- 
nis divina potentia rubus. We find more 
than one instance, in the Passion History, of 
a similar display of Providential Power in 
matters apparently trifling, Even the name 
Barabbas itself has a remarkable significan- 
cy ; it means, son of the father. According 
to this, the whole character of the Saviour 
appears to be caricatured in Barabbas ; and 
it is not improbable, that his whole under- 
taking was a caricature of the Holy One, 
since he had probably pretended to the au- 
thority of the Messiah. The deluded peo- 
ple in their blindness chose the hellish cari- 



134 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

cature, instead of the heavenly original ; all 
the endeavors of Pilate, who well knew the 
hatred of the priests towards Jesus, were 
fruitless. The priests demanded Barabbas, 
and determined that Jesus should be cruci- 
fied. While the Procurator from his judg- 
ment seat was thus striving to save Jesus 
Christ from the hands of the bloody priests, 
a message came from his wife, which made 
him mindful and anxious for the just man, 
whom he was called to judge. Her name, 
according to tradition, was Claudia Procula, 
and she had followed her husband into the 
Province. She had probably heard much 
about the person of Christ, and understood 
the danger in which her husband was placed 
of doing a fearful wrong by passing sentence 
of condemnation. The strange fancies, 
that the dream of Procula was a miracle of 
Christ, in order to save himself from death, 
or a miracle of the devil, in order to defeat 
the plan of redemption, need no refutation. 
But we cannot help asking, in regard to this 
remarkable occurrence, on what grounds did 
Providence permit this warning ? Since the 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 135 

death of Christ was actually determined, 
this dream appears to have done only harm ; 
it must have increased the responsibility of 
Pilate, who already knew too much to be 
innocent, and who was still too strongly 
bound by the chains of worldliness, to dare 
boldly to defend the right. It may be re- 
marked, in the first place, that the dream of 
Procula was of service to herself, and it is 
not improbable, that it led her to faith in 
Christ. Moreover, the law of necessity 
must not be so considered, as to limit the 
freedom of our individual actions. From 
the human subjective point of view, it was 
possible for Pilate to acquit Christ, and even 
to confess faith in him, just as it was possi- 
ble that the members of the Sanhedrim, who 
were favorably disposed to Christ, Nicodemus 
and Joseph of Arimathea, might have pro- 
fessed faith in him and changed the deter- 
mination of that assembly. It is clear, that 
if anything of this kind had taken place, 
the whole history of the world would have 
been changed, and this leads us back to 
that high objective necessity, which rests 



136 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

with God and not with men, whose actions, 
as being free, serve to fulfil the Divine neces- 
sity. It was right according to the Divine 
decree, since the death of Christ was not 
merely an apparent, but a real fruit of the 
sins of man, that every opportunity should 
be afforded to Pilate, to enable him to ascer- 
tain the innocence of Christ. If his sinful- 
ness was thereby increased, it was the curse 
of his untruth, by which his susceptibility 
to divine emotion, and all the means afford- 
ed him for recognising the Divine Being, 
proved fatal to him, because they could 
not induce him to decide for the right. 

In order to deter Pilate in his exertions in 
behalf of Christ, the chief priests advanced 
an accusation against him, that was very of- 
fensive to Pilate : they accused him of a po- 
litical offence ; that he had perverted the 
nation, and forbidden them to pay tribute to 
Caesar. The power of darkness had so 
blinded them, that they did not feel the ab- 
surdity of freeing the actual rebel, and of 
falsely accusing him of rebellion, who had 
expressly declared, that the things that were 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 137 

Caesar's should be rendered to Caesar. But 
while they repeat these accusations, so dan- 
gerous for Pilate, they mention that he com- 
menced his operations in Galilee. The 
unhappy Pilate gladly seized hold of this, 
hoping to force himself from the burden of 
responsibility, by placing it upon another. 
Yet in this course he evidently endangered 
the life of the just one, which he should 
have defended even at the risk of his own, 
since Herod could pass a sentence of death 
upon him as his subject. We now find him 
near his fall ; the sending to Herod was but 
a short respite, which he sought for his 
stricken conscience. Herod Antipas, the 
ruler of Galilee, at that time was present at 
Jerusalem at the Feast. Pilate had Christ 
led to him. It must now be granted, that 
Jesus was not born in Galilee, but in Judea. 
Herod therefore sent him back, without 
bringing him to trial. From this state 
of things, the conduct of Jesus towards 
him is to be explained. Herod was his 
ruler, inasmuch as Jesus had dwelt the 
longer time in his dominions, but he was 



138 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

not born under him, and did not stand ac- 
cused before him as his official judge. The 
culpable curiosity of Herod obtained as lit- 
tle satisfaction from Jesus, as was given in 
the conversation with Annas. The revenge- 
ful priests had accompanied the Lord to 
Herod. They stood around and vehement- 
ly accused him. But when Herod saw noth- 
ing remarkable in him, he ascribed this to 
the incapacity of Jesus, made sport of him 
with his body guard, clad him in mockery 
in a purple robe, and sent him back to Pilate. 
Luke remarks, they had become reconciled 
this day, since otherwise they had been op- 
posed to each other. Whether the cruelty 
of Pilate against some of the subjects of 
Herod had kindled this enmity, it does not 
appear. It is not said, that the sending of 
Christ to Herod was the cause of this recon- 
ciliation. It is only said, that it took place 
upon that day. This remark would have 
been aimless, if Luke had not meant to con- 
vey a deeper idea ; but the observation is 
very important, that very often, in case of 
an attack upon some nobler personage, the 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 139 

otherwise opposite interests of men of the 
world are all united, in order to put down 
the germing element, that is springing up to 
oppose them. This comes, even if they are 
not aware of it, from the correct idea, that 
the free development of this new element 
must destroy all their interests : hence indi- 
vidual grudges are for the time kept out of 
sight, in order to save the common good. 
The persecutions of the church exhibit this 
drama on a grand scale. 

With what feelings must Pilate behold the 
wild multitude thronging back to his pal- 
ace. He had hoped to free himself from the 
responsibility, and behold, it is again placed 
upon him ! He repeats that he finds no guilt 
in Jesus, and mentions that Herod had found 
none. In order to give some satisfaction to 
their wild hatred, he orders Jesus to be 
scourged ; this was an act of clemency in 
his eyes, in order, if possible, to save an in- 
nocent life. While the soldiers scourged 
Jesus in the courtyard, Pilate had probably 
retired into his inner apartments ; and in his 
absence the Roman soldiers surrender them- 



140 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

selves to their wild lust in their mockery of 
the sublime prisoner ; but without knowing 
what they do, they form a deeply significant 
symbol, which wakes a multitude of con- 
trasted thoughts. They crown the King of 
Heaven and Earth, in token of the bitter- 
ness of the dominion, which he exercised 
over the souls of millions. When they had 
thus arrayed the Saviour, Pilate came forth 
from the palace, led him in his garment of 
sorrow from the court yard, and showed the 
people their king w T ith a crown of thorns 
upon his head, saying, Behold the man. 
The only just interpretation of this expres- 
sion is that, which supposes it to flow from 
the Roman's sympathy in the fate of him 
who had so deeply moved his heart. Tho- 
luck's idea of Pilate, as an entirely weak 
man of the world, hurts the deep interest of 
the scene between him and Christ. He 
seems to have felt much of the Lord's great- 
ness, and thereby to be more guilty, than if 
the case had been otherwise. This view of 
his character is supported by his skepticism, 
which very weak spirits are not prone to 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 141 

feel, and also by his subsequent conversa- 
tions with our Lord, which disclose in a re- 
markable manner the inward struggle of the 
unhappy Roman, and manifest that germ of 
faith, that would develop itself in his heart. 
While the rough Roman, who had been 
bred amid the battle tumult, and had dwelt 
amid cruelty and hardship, was moved with 
sorrowful compassion, when he saw the Lord 
with the crown of thorns, in whom heavenly 
majesty was so wondrously mingled with the 
deepest humility — those ministers of the 
sanctuary, who had been their life long con- 
versant with the holy law and the prophe- 
cies, raised their pitiless shout : crucify him, 
crucify him ! Once more Pilate was willing 
to deliver him up to them for punishment, 
which should not be capital, but they thirsted 
for his blood. Hereupon they brought a new 
accusation, which demanded the penalty of 
death according to their law. They accused 
him of being a blasphemer, since he pre- 
tended to be the Son of God. This proves 
clearly that they did not use the expression 
"Son of God " as synonymous with " Christ," 



142 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

or " King of the Jews ; " since they had al- 
ready accused Jesus of calling himself the 
Christ, but this other name was new to Pi- 
late. In the assumption of this name, they 
saw a blasphemy, which deserved death ac- 
cording to the law. This new charge terri- 
fied Pilate still more ; he again left his judg- 
ment seat, led Jesus again into the palace, 
and began to question him more closely 
about his origin. Since the earthly origin 
of Jesus had been ascertained by the mission 
to Herod, we must consider Pilate's ques- 
tion, " whence art thou," as referring to the 
name " Son of God." Pilate wished to 
know whether he was of a higher origin, and 
actually a Son of God. His idea of a Son 
of God may have been somewhat indistinct, 
like that of the centurion at the crucifixion ; 
but he must have thought, even if he took 
the phrase in its most vague generality, that 
it designated a Heavenly Nature. The fact 
that the mind of the skeptic was so deeply 
penetrated by this circumstance, goes strong- 
ly against the supposition of his extreme 
weakness. By the exhibition of this heav- 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 143 

enly character, his hollow skeptical system 
was prostrated ; the reality of the Divinity, 
in its indwelling power, took hold of his 
soul, while in his professions he denied its 
reality. The deep inward wants of his na- 
ture, which by mistaken speculation had 
driven him to skepticism, here acted with 
all their power. His spirit's eye saw the 
light, and he could not persuade himself that 
it did not exist. What loftiness and majes- 
ty the air of Jesus must have expressed, 
that, although in the deepest humiliation, un- 
der the Jewish form so odious to the heathen, 
and in a garb of mockery, he should have 
struck with wonder and admiration the mind 
of Pilate ! The Saviour replied no more to 
Pilate's questions; he felt that the Roman 
would not fight the, battle through, and he 
did not wish to lead him into further temp- 
tation. The Roman was moved to astonish- 
ment and anguish by this silence ; he sought 
to compel Christ by force to reply. Our 
Lord made use of this intimation to warn 
Pilate of a mighty power, which was above 
him ; by this he raises the sense of depend- 



144 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

ence in the mind of Pilate, and also expres- 
ses his own consciousness, that he himself is 
ruled by the high power of God, and not by 
his own might. With heartfelt compassion for 
the situation of the unhappy Roman, the 
Saviour, foreseeing the result of the struggle, 
declares, that those hardhearted priests, who 
not only thirsted after his own blood, but led 
Pilate into such severe temptation, sinned 
far more than he. Deeply abased, as he 
was, the accused appears here again, as be- 
fore the Sanhedrim, like the Judge and 
Sovereign, while he estimates the sin of the 
Roman Ruler, and gives him a gleam of 
hope for forgiveness. With sublime dignity 
the Saviour had addressed Pilate ; and he, 
instead of feeling offended, began now for 
the first time to think of freeing him, as if 
he had done nothing from the beginning. 
But his efforts were powerless. The secret 
bonds of the world held his weak nature in 
too strong embrace ; he spoke the words : 
You are not a friend to Ccesar ; and he 
fell ! 

Now Pilate led Jesus quickly forward, 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 145 

placed himself upon the judgment seat, and 
after he had called out. Behold your King, 
less probably in order to raise compassion, 
than to deride the people, who so cruelly 
compelled him to act against his conscience, 
he pronounced the sentence, and gave the 
Saviour up to them for crucifixion. 

There is a chronological difficulty in re- 
gard to the hour, in which the condemnation 
took place. John speaks of the sixth hour, 
as that of the condemnation, while Mark 
says the crucifixion took place at the third 
hour. According to Matthew and Luke al- 
so, the Saviour had been sometime on the 
cross at the sixth hour. But some manu- 
scripts have third instead of sixth hour, in- 
serted in John ; and moreover, it should be 
remembered, that John wrote for the people 
of Asia Minor especially, and might count 
time from midnight according to the Roman 
custom, and thus his statement, that Jesus 
was condemned on the sixth hour, would 
not be inconsistent with the statement of the 
others, that he was crucified before the third 
hour, According to this, the condemnation 
10 



146 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

took place at six o'clock, (according to our 
method of computing time,) and the cruci- 
fixion before nine. 

Matthew alone states, that Pilate, by a 
symbolical act, freed himself in the eyes of 
the people of the guilt of the death of a 
just man. But his previous sentence, to- 
gether with the declaration, that he was a 
just man, whom he had delivered up to cru- 
cifixion, shows this act to have been an 
empty ceremony. But the deluded people 
cried out, his blood be upon us and our 
children ; unconsciously invoking a blessing 
upon themselves, since while the blood of 
Abel calls for vengeance, the blood of Christ 
calls for forgiveness. After the withdrawal 
of Pilate, who had now released Barabbas 
to the people, the rough soldiers may have 
made more mockery of Jesus, as has been 
before mentioned, since he still wore the 
purple robe and the crown of thorns. When 
they would lead him to the place of pun- 
ishment, they put his own clothes upon 
him, and then burdened him with the cross. 
Now that we have reached the conclusion 



TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 147 

of the trial of Christ before Pilate, the end of 
the unhappy Roman deserves some men- 
tion. It is nowhere told how the news of 
the Lord's resurrection affected him. Ac- 
cording to Josephus, he indulged in so many 
abuses and oppressions, subsequently, that 
the Proconsul of Syria deposed him from 
his office in the last year of Tiberius, and 
banished him into Gaul. As to what the 
Fathers of the Church say of the " Acts" 
of Pilate, which he sent to Rome in regard 
to the death of Christ, and which induced 
Tiberius to adopt Jesus among the number 
of Gods, the whole account is so garnished, 
as undoubtedly to deserve no more credit 
than a mere legend. But according to the 
Gospel History, it is highly probable that 
Pilate actually wrote to Tiberius on the 
subject, for since political affairs were con- 
cerned in the trial, he would be unwilling 
that any tidings of a King of the Jews should 
reach Rome before his own. But since he 
had already condemned Jesus to death, 
there was no ground for concealing his fa-- 
vorable opinion of the Saviour. From the 



148 TRANSACTIONS BEFORE PILATE. 

favorable statements of Pilate, a legend may 
have been formed, that Tiberius had al- 
lowed Christ to be adopted by the Senate 
into the company of the gods. 






CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 149 



SECTION V. 



CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF JESUS. 



Matt, xxvii. 32-36; Mark xv. 21-41 ; Luke xxiii. 
26-29; John xix. 17-30. 



In wild haste and contrary to all usage, 
the chief priests lead Jesus, who had scarce- 
ly been condemned, to the place of punish- 
ment. The guiltless One is attended by 
some Roman soldiers, (from a German le- 
gion stationed in Palestine,) and goes forth 
bearing his cross. The symbolical expres- 
sion, to take up his cross, receives its deep 
sanctity from this affecting proceeding. The 
Saviour was probably so exhausted by the 
heavy struggle of body and soul, that he 
fainted under the heavy burden. For him, 
who was the helper of all, another was 
obliged to bear the cross, a certain Simon of 
Gyrene- It is commonly supposed, after 



150 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

Grotius, that this Simon was a follower of 
Christ, and therefore was chosen for this 
purpose. But this seems to me the less 
probable, because he must in that case have 
been in the city, and been present at the 
trial of Jesus. But since he came in from 
the country, it seems to me more probable, 
that he before was not acquainted with Je- 
sus ; and perhaps this office, which he per- 
formed for Jesus, was the means of leading 
him to God, so that his bodily toil attained a 
heavenly reward. Simon subsequently ad- 
hered with his family to Christ, for Luke 
states him to have been the father of Alex- 
ander and Rums, who of course must have 
been known by name to the first readers of 
the Gospel. 

Upon the way to the place of crucifixion, 
many persons followed Jesus, especially 
women, who manifested their sympathy by 
lamentations and tears. The words, which 
Jesus addressed to their sympathising hearts, 
seem surprising; they contain nothing to 
console or help, but rather the contrary. 
But in the first place, we must consider, that 



CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 151 

the company of women, who followed him 
to the grave, are not to be regarded as be- 
ing all believers; for the words of Luke 
(xxiii. 28) do not favor such an idea. Again, 
the faithful had no cause to fear the terrible 
judgments, of which our Lord spoke, since, 
according to the Lord's promise, they, like 
Noah and Lot, would be saved from these. 
Moreover the sympathy of these women is 
to be regarded less as an expression of con- 
sciousness of what was going forward, than 
as a merely natural impulse of pity, such as 
the excitable feelings of women so readily 
express. Nevertheless, it was undoubtedly 
grateful to the Saviour's heart to experience 
this warm and compassionate interest, after 
the many outbreaks of cruelty which he had 
endured ; but his exalted spirit, even in view 
of bitter death, thought not of his own pleas- 
ure, which might have induced him, by ut- 
tering his hearty thanks to the women, to 
increase the gentle stream of their pity : he 
rather sought to secure a permanent bless- 
ing to their well-meaning hearts. Such a 
blessing could be ensured only by their be- 



152 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

ing made conscious of the magnitude of 
what was taking place and of its necessary 
consequences, and by their being thus led 
to sincere repentance. Therefore the Sa- 
viour bids them to turn away from him un- 
to themselves ; weep not for me, but for 
yourselves and your children. They, as 
members of the nation, bear part of the 
guilt, and must share the punishment. The 
Saviour describes the magnitude of this pun^ 
ishment in words of the Old Testament. 
He, in proverbial language, in which the in" 
nocent are compared with the green tree, the 
godless with the dry tree, closes his address, 
the purport of which was to awaken a con- 
sciousness of their alienation from God, and 
to induce them earnestly to seek the way of 
salvation. 

Two malefactors are led to Golgotha with 
Christ and crucified with him, one on the 
right hand, the other on the left. The 
prophetic saying, " he shall be numbered 
with transgressors" was thereby fulfilled. 
As to the place of crucifixion, this was the 
usual spot, called the place of a skull, from 



CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 153 

the heaps of the skulls of unfortunate be- 
ings, who had breathed their life out there. 
As to the form of crucifixion, we need only 
inquire into the single point, whether the 
feet were usually nailed or bound. The 
common opinion in the ancient and modern 
church, that the feet were pierced with 
nails, has been oposed by Dr. Paulus, Ro- 
senmuller, Kuinoel, and others, but there 
seems no good reason for departing from 
the old view, as maintained from Luke xxiv. 
39, and Psalm xxii. 17. 

The Romans were accustomed to admin- 
ister to the unfortunate prisoners an intoxicat- 
ing drink, in order to make them less sensible 
to the terrible pangs of this most cruel pun- 
ishment. Mark speaks of this drink, as being 
wine mingled with myrrh, and Matthew calls 
it vinegar mingled with gall. These two 
views may be entirely reconciled by consid- 
ering, that vinegar is nothing but common 
sour wine, and gall is a term applied to all 
bitter substances. 

But if we compare Luke xxiii. 36, where 
it is expressly numbered among the soldiers' 



154 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

acts of mockery, that they reached to the 
Saviour vinegar, and if we also consider 
Psalm lxix. 22, where it is reckoned among 
the sufferings of the Messiah, that he shall 
take vinegar and gall, there is no doubt, 
that the Evangelists regarded this an addi- 
tion to his sorrows. But this view does not 
take away our belief, that the original cause 
of such a drink was kindness ; since, if it 
apparently was an act of love, it was yet 
the expression of a very unholy love, where- 
fore the Saviour regarded it as a fresh mock- 
ery, and as soon as he had tasted the drink, 
turned away from it, because he wished to 
meet death with a clear and rational con- 
sciousness. During the nailing him to the 
cross, he probably made the touching prayer ; 
" Father forgive them, for they know not 
what they do." The expression, " Father," 
shows that, even at the moment in which he 
was hung upon the cross, the filial spirit 
towards God was alive in his soul. In his 
prayer, he not only embraced the soldiers, 
who performed the crucifixion ; they were the 
mere instruments, without responsibility, yea 



CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 155 

even without guilt, those only excepted, who 
exercised unnecessary cruelty ; his prayer 
more especially embraced in its broad com- 
pass all those, who were guilty of his death, 
even the chief priests and Pilate. If igno- 
rance as to what they did seems to be as- 
signed, as an excuse for them, we must re- 
member, as before remarked, that the very 
ignorance of those, that were murdering the 
Holy One of God, was their guilt, and this 
demanded the Saviour's, the great High 
Priest's, prayer for its pardon. 

The Synopsists speak very briefly of the 
parting of the garments of Jesus, and of the 
inscription over the cross ; but John men- 
tions these particulars very expressly. It 
was the custom with the Romans, as in the 
Kingdom of Turkey, to attach a tablet to all 
criminals, which stated the causes of their 
punishment. In Roman language, this was 
called " titulus." Pilate might perhaps have 
ordered this expression to have been written 
without any particular design ; but when 
he observed, that the form, in which it was 
composed, was disagreeable to the priests, 



156 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

whom he hated, he persisted in it, and made 
no alteration. The cunning priests feared 
a bad impression would be made by the 
fact, that Jesus was represented as the King 
of the Jews, without more particular expla- 
nation ; it was too likely to call to mind 
those passages of the Old Testament, in 
which the Jews are represented as despising 
their King, and he is described as in the 
deepest humiliation. They justly feared, 
that these passages would be used as proofs, 
that Jesus was the true Messiah. After the 
crucifixion was completed, four soldiers, who 
had been appointed for the purpose, sat un- 
der the cross, and divided the garments of 
Jesus into four parts ; but they cast lots for 
the mantle, which was without seam. The 
Evangelist here refers to Psalm xxii. 19, in 
which this proceeding is described with as- 
tonishing accuracy, which furnishes a new 
proof, how our Lord unites in himself and 
his fate the greatest and the least in incom- 
parable union. 

Thus the Son of God hung between 
Heaven and Earth, slain upon the cross, as 



CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 157 

upon an altar, like a patient Iamb, bearing 
the sins of the world. Still the measure of 
his suffering was not filled. The passers- 
by reviled him, and the priests insolently 
repeated the words which he had uttered, 
in order to mock him ; and according to 
Luke, the soldiers also reviled him. 

While Matthew and Mark state, without 
qualification, that those crucified with Jesus 
also reviled him ; Luke more satisfactorily 
states, that only one was guilty of this, and 
that the other in view of approaching death, 
besought Christ to receive him into his King- 
dom, and that Christ granted him his pray- 
er. There is a mysterious charm diffused 
over this little occurrence. 

In the first place, this joyful incident 
comes so unexpectedly into the throng of 
sad events, that it astonishes us. While all 
the disciples were scattered, (only the faith- 
ful John was found near the cross,) Judas 
had betrayed his Lord, and Peter had denied 
him, while wild hatred was exercised against 
the Saviour by the priests and the people, 
and the weakness of Pilate had manifested 



158 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

itself, — under all these unfavorable circum- 
stances, a living faith appeared in a most 
wonderful manner in a robber and a mur- 
derer. Moreover, as long as Christ was not 
placed upon the cross, many of his adher- 
ents might hope, that he would free himself 
by a miracle. But who could, think the 
pierced right arm of him nailed to the cross 
mighty enough to lead through the dark 
vale of the shadow of death ! Who could 
think him, who died the death of a criminal, 
worthy to command the gates of Paradise ! 
We must suppose, that a noble character 
dwelt in this unhappy man. He may ear- 
lier have heard of Christ, and have felt many 
strong emotions ; still he remains an actual 
proof, that Christ has come to save sinners, 
and he stands as a hero of faith, since he 
believed, when those had lost their faith, who 
had openly professed, that they owned Christ 
for the Son of the living God. In the third 
place, this occurrence suggests to the un- 
prejudiced observer of the Passion History 
a character, which has been too often mis- 
taken ; the symbolic character. The suf- 



CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 159 

fering Jesus, as a symbol of a fulness of 
deep truths and important lessons, speaks a 
language to the world, which his living word 
would scarcely have been able to speak 
forth. If aside from this or that dogmatic 
view, we consider the history of the dying 
Jesus, simply, as the Evangelists relate it, 
we must acknowledge, that even the most 
boundless fancy could not imagine a poeti- 
cal creation, like this simple record of a real 
event. Imagination forms only by analogy, 
but here is something in every respect in- 
comparable, a fresh product of the Creative 
Power. He, who in the beginning was with 
the Father, who could say, he that seeth 
me, seeth the Father, as they honor the 
Father, so should they honor the Son, and 
who left all his majesty, in order to take 
upon himself flesh and blood, hung naked 
upon the cross ; became poor, left all be- 
hind, in order to make us rich through his 
poverty. His head was crowned with thorns 
in emblem of the sorrows, which the earth, 
the mother of thorns, prepared for him. 
Over his head appeared the holy name, 



160 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

which, as a banner, written in the three great 
languages of the earth, declared him the 
King of Glory, whom mankind had hung 
upon the cross. His arms were outstretch- 
ed, as if to embrace the world which re- 
jected him, and for whose salvation he still 
thirsted. At his left hung the infidel male- 
factor, who, with the rough populace, had 
reviled the Holy One ; at his right was the 
sinner who repented; so that around the 
Saviour the representatives of mankind were 
assembled, both of those, who go the way 
of perdition, and those who walk the way 
of salvation. In his deep abasement, the 
Saviour nevertheless exercised an act of Di- 
vine majesty ; he received the homage of 
the faithful, he opened to him the gates of 
the Heavenly Kingdom. The cross of Christ 
became a throne, the place of a skull became 
the world's tribunal. 

As to the particulars of this incident, the 
attempt has been made to deprive it of the 
extraordinary character ; but all these efforts 
have, without exception, been very weak. 
The prayer of the thief, remember me. Lord, 



CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 161 

when thou shalt come in thy Kingdom, has 
been said to refer merely to a kind remem- 
brance in the world of the blessed ; but the 
expression, come in thy Kingdom, cannot 
possibly be understood in this way. But if 
the man supposed Christ to be the Messiah, 
and applied to him the representations of a 
suffering Messiah, it is astonishing that this 
man could do this, and the disciples could 
not. No new light is given by the expres- 
sion, which follows, verily I say unto you, 
this day thou shalt be with me in Para- 
dise. These words have been so weaken- 
ed, as to be translated, " I tell you this day, 
[comma after day,] thou shalt sometime be 
with me in Paradise ; God is love, and he 
will make thee, sometime, blessed." But 
this expression might have been made by 
any one, as well as Jesus, and moreover the 
phrase, verily I say unto you, is not suited 
to such a meaning, as Kuinoel justly ob- 
serves. The Gospel History evidently states 
the proceeding in such a way, that the two 
essential elements of salvation, repentance 
and faith, seem present in the man's heart; 
11 



162 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

it is very likely, that these had their prepar- 
atory causes, but this does not destroy the 
striking point in the proceeding, which lies 
in the fact, that this man was able in a mo- 
ment to lay hold of Christ with repentant 
faith, at a moment, in which none else 
could. 

As to the word, " Paradise," it is in no 
way to be regarded, as equivalent to " Heav- 
en," or " Heavenly world." Since Jesus is 
expressly declared by scripture (1 Peter iii. 
18) to have descended, immediately after 
his death, into the kingdom of the dead, it 
is evident, that Christ could only mean by 
his promise to the thief, that his soul should 
go with the Saviour's to the assembly of the 
dead. In 2 Corinthians xii. 4, the Heaven- 
ly world seems to be called " Paradise ; " 
but we must remember, that the Jews dis- 
tinguished the upper from the lower para- 
dise. The last is synonymous with Abra- 
ham's bosom, and marks the place of bliss in 
the kingdom of the dead, as Gehenna marks 
the place of suffering. 

This scene of infinite sublimity, in which 



CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 163 

the Saviour appears, as ruler of the Heav- 
enly world, is followed by another incident, 
which shows how the Lord, in the severest 
of his agonies, regarded the least circum- 
stances of his earthly connexions, as well as 
the most exalted purposes of his life. By 
the power of perfect love, which always 
looked beyond itself, and embraced even the 
stranger in its blessing, he thought of his 
mother Mary. While her divine son hung 
upon the cross, the sword, of which Simeon 
had prophesied, penetrated her soul. All 
that she had experienced in the most blissful 
moments of her life was darkened, doubts 
stormed her soul ; the moment of her own 
new birth had come ; the mother of Christ 
was now to bear the new man, the Christ in 
us. There was no need of any command 
to induce the faithful disciple to take the 
mother of the Lord to his own house ; she 
lived in the lap of love, so that she lacked 
nothing ; but for her sake the Lord uttered 
from the cross those words of consolation. 
The feeling of abandonment would have 
been too mighty for her, and Jesus there^ 



164 CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 

fore gave a son to her, when she believed 
she had lost her beloved one. 

In regard to the persons, who are men- 
tioned by John as standing near the cross, 
it is to be observed, that according to Mat- 
thew, and the parallel passages, the persons 
mentioned are said to have watched the 
proceedings from afar. This agrees very 
well with the account in John, if we sup- 
pose, that after a while some of them ap- 
proached the cross. John appears to have 
been the only one of the disciples, who ven- 
tured ; among the women, besides Mary, 
the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, 
and Salome, a third Mary is also mention- 
ed. John expressly mentions her as the 
sister of Jesus' mother, and the wife of a 
certain Cleopas ; Matthew and Mark desig- 
nate her as the mother of James, (Mark 
particularizes James the less,) and of Joses. 
By comparing Matthew (xiii. 55,) we find 
two persons of this name among those call- 
ed the Lord's brethren, wherefore the idea is 
very probable, that these brethren of Christ 
were sons of his mother's sister, and conse- 



DEATH OF JESUS. 165 

quently were his cousins. The name, James 
the less, serves to distinguish the Lord's 
brother of this name, from the Apostle 
James. According to John vii. 5, and Acts 
i. 18, none of the Lord's brethren was 
among the twelve. 

After these most pathetic incidents at Gol- 
gotha, the great moment of the death of 
the Prince of Life approached. Nature her- 
self seems symbolically to have solemnized 
the sublimity of this moment ; when the 
light of the world appeared to die out, dark- 
ness stretched over the whole country from 
the sixth until the ninth hour. Luke express- 
ly declares, that the sun was darkened. 
This might be accounted for by an eclipse 
of the sun, if the full moon at the Easter 
time did not destroy such an opinion. Noth- 
ing need prevent our assigning in other ways 
some physical grounds in explanation of this 
darkness, since it is not said, that there was 
anything miraculous in it,^ior can there be 
any object for supposing such a miracle. 
The biblical doctrine of Providence, which 
excludes all accidental coincidences, de. 



166 DEATH OF JESUS. 

mands no other view of the occurrence, than 
the one given. When now the moment of 
death approached, a still severer agony 
awaited the Saviour ; it was the last of his 
earthly life of conflict, but perhaps the sever- 
est, since the soul now tore itself away from 
the bonds of that holy body, which must 
have been all the more sensitive on account 
of its sinlessness. The same remarks are 
in general applicable here, which were made 
in regard to the agony in Gethsemane ; on- 
ly the truth is here actually expressed, which 
we then supposed in order to explain those 
facts. Here the Saviour laments in the 
words of Psalm xxii. 1, his abandonment by 
God. Every attempt to weaken the force 
of these words should be rejected. The 
Saviour did not use this language, because 
the 22d Psalm contained it ; in the inner 
truth and harmony of his whole life, Jesus 
used no words, which did not fully express a 
reality. Every deep consideration of the 
event forbids our referring the expression to 
a sense of abandonment on account of his 
mere outward sorrows. Since the greatest 



DEATH OF JESUS. 167 

physical suffering is no desolation to him, 
whose soul is filled with the divine power 
and joy. But the magnitude of the suffer- 
ings of Christ lay in the fact, that his physi- 
cal torments were attended by a deprivation 
of divine power in his soul. His bodily 
nakedness was but an emblem of his inner 
destitution of all Heavenly ornament. 

If we consider, that such abandonment 
came over him who had said, " I and my 
Father are one," " He, who hath seen me, 
hath seen the Father," it is evident, that the 
object of this, as of the death of Christ, 
which is to be considered only as the con- 
summation of his sufferings, must be pecu- 
liarly, infinitely great. According to scrip- 
ture, this object was two-fold. 

In the first place, the path of sorrow and 
abandonment was necessary to the perfect de- 
velopment of our Lord's human nature. In 
the second place, the Saviour suffered this in 
order to finish all things in himself, as the 
second Adam. For by one offering, he hath 
perfected forever them that are sanctified. 
(Heb. x. 14.) This fulfilment of the whole 



168 DEATH OF JESUS. 

has a negative, and a positive side, which 
are consistent and nearly connected with 
one another, but which yet should not be 
confounded. The negative side is the wash- 
ing away the guilt of a sinful life, the re- 
conciliation with God, the forgiveness of 
sins ; this could not be done without blood, 
which is the highest evidence of self-sacrific- 
ing, devoted love. In this view, the dying 
Saviour appeared as the lamb of God, who 
bore the sins of the world. The positive 
side is the communication of a higher princi- 
ple of life, redemption from the slavery of sin, 
the creation of the new man — of Christ in 
us. This side is marked chiefly by the re- 
surrection, which is the necessary consumma- 
tion of the death of Christ ; the other, or 
negative side, is marked by his death, 
which was the summit of self-sacrificing 
love. 

In what follows, it is related, that the by- 
standers misunderstood the exclamation of 
Christ; they believed that he called upon 
Elias, whom they expected as the forerun- 
ner of the Messiah. Many interpreters con- 



DEATH OF JESUS. 169 

sider these words as spoken in mockery, but 
this is not indicated in a single syllable ; it is 
more probable, that a secret shudder, such 
as often shows itself in the most hardened, 
and seized them more fearfully at a later 
moment, ran through their minds. These 
rough mockers might still mistrust, that there 
was something in the Messiahship of the 
crucified one, and they shuddered at the 
thought, that Elias might appear to them 
amid thunder and storm. Psychologically, 
this is far more probable, since even the ru- 
dest nature, when tired of scorn and mock- 
ery towards innocence, is apt to change its 
mood, and a nobler sentiment arises, even 
if it appear only in the tremors of a bad con- 
science. ; 

When our Lord cried out, " I thirst," 
they hastened and gave to him the sponge 
with vinegar upon a hyssop-stalk. After Je- 
sus had taken the drink, he called out once 
more aloud, and expired. According to 
John, the Saviour used the expression, " it 
is finished." That this expression has some- 
thing more than a physical meaning, is de- 



170 DEATH OF JESUS. 

clared by the preceding words ; Jesus know- 
ing, that all things were fulfilled. But 
apart from this, our Lord's very nature leads 
to the more comprehensive sense of expres- 
sion. Ever inspired by the thought of the 
exalted object of his mission, he now looked 
upon it as wholly finished and realized. As 
by the fall of Adam all was lost, by Christ's 
victory over all the assaults of darkness the 
conquest of all was gained. According to 
Luke, Jesus spoke also the words ; Father, 
into thy hands, do I commend my spirit. 
In the simple word, " Father," the gentle, 
filial spirit speaks forth, undisturbed by the 
magnitude of his pains. While the soul of 
Christ went to the realm of the dead,(Scheol,) 
his body rested in the grave, his spirit re- 
turned to God ; by the resurrection all were 
again united in harmonious unity. 

This bare and simple narration of the 
greatest event in the history of the world, 
the turning point of the old and new world, 
is followed by some statements of subse- 
quent occurrences, in which the Universe 
by physical events gave witness of what 



DEATH OF JESUS. 171 

took place, as, at the birth of Christ, the 
sympathy of the spiritual world was express- 
ed by the appearance of the angels. At 
the moment of the death of the Prince of 
Life, the earth trembled, the rocks were torn 
asunder, and the vail of the temple was 
rent in twain. It is of no consequence, 
whether we consider this earthquake, as 
common, or miraculous; since chance is 
here excluded, as is self-evident, and the 
rich and deeply significant symbol in both 
cases remains. Upon the Saviour's death, 
light penetrated into all secret places ; the 
graves were opened, Hades and its dead be- 
held the heavenly light ; and the closed ac- 
cess to the holiest sanctuary of God, which 
the earthly temple prefigured, was open to 
men. When the by-standers beheld the 
commotion in nature, a vague feeling led 
them to the just idea, that this was connect- 
ed with the crucified one. The Roman cen- 
turion himself declared, that this must in- 
deed be the Son of God. A shuddering 
feeling seized the remainder of the crowd, 
whom mere idle curiosity had led to see the 



172 



DEATH OF JESUS. 



crucifixion ; they beat their breasts and 
turned away ; they knew not, that they had 
seen what angels desired to look into. 

But Matthew in anticipation introduces a 
very remarkable statement; he states, that 
not only were the graves (in the rocks) 
opened by the earthquake, but many saints 
arose, and (subsequently) went into the holy 
city, and appeared to many. The only view, 
except the literal historic one, that can be 
taken of this relation is the mythic view ; 
for what is called the naturalist view, which 
connects the loss of some bodies, which the 
earthquake cast out of their graves with 
some accidental dreams of some citizens of 
Jerusalem, is so faulty, as to need no refu- 
tation. The mythic view seems very plaus- 
ible in regard to so extraordinary an event, 
and it is therefore not to be wondered at, 
that the numerous opposers of the bodily 
resurrection of Jesus are inclined to it. But 
in this case, as in general, the close prox- 
imity of time, which does not allow us to 
believe in the formation of mythic or sym- 
bolic fables in presence of contemporaries, 



DEATH OF JESUS. 173 

forbids our adopting this view ; yet the de- 
fenders of this opinion may take shelter be- 
hind Matthew in regard to this point, and 
may join with the many, who would make 
us think, that the 'gospel of Matthew, as we 
possess it, was not composed by the Apos- 
tle. But improbable as this latter idea ap- 
pears, we may grant its truth and still main- 
tain a distinct ground against the mythic 
view of the passage under consideration. 
The statement 'in this passage is against all 
analogy, and against the universally re- 
ceived standard of faith ; Christ is always 
considered as " the first-born of the dead," 
which is entirely at variance with this pas- 
sage : the mythists would undoubtedly have 
placed this event after the account of the 
Lord's resurrection, and not in the narra- 
tive of his death. If the resurrection was 
now merely to be made apparent to Chris- 
tian consciousness, then this event only ex- 
presses the simple thought that the resur- 
rection followed gradually, and that the 
Saints of the old covenant came to be glori- 
fied in the body. The difficulty, so often 



174 DEATH OF JESUS. 

considered, of the connexion of these risen 
saints with Christ the first-born of the dead 
would then be set aside, by placing the 
going forth from their graves immediately 
after the Lord's resurrection. According to 
this view, the death of Christ appears an 
universal, astounding blow, but the resurrec- 
tion appears as the peculiar life-quicken- 
ing for the slumbering world of Saints. 
This first coming of the Lord has by this 
event a peculiar beauty, for it thus be- 
comes a prefiguring of that glorious com- 
ing of the Lord, which is still to be expect- 
ed. All, that shall take place in the great 
development at the last day, is significantly 
indicated by the first coming of Christ. 



BURIAL OF JESUS. 175 



SECTION VI. 



BURIAL OF JESUS. 



(Matt, xxvii. 57-66; Mark xv. 42-47; Luke xxiii. 
50 - 56 ; John xix. 31 - 42.) 

After the soul of Jesus had left the 
pure temple of its habitation, his holy body 
was not left neglected, as if it were the in- 
significant veil of a heavenly phantom, but 
a wondrous influence of God hovered over 
it, and kept away every offensive mutilation. 
John, conscious of the importance of these 
particulars, has carefully related every inci- 
dent. In these statements we have not on- 
ly an assurance, as satisfactory as is possible 
on physical grounds, for the real death of 
Christ, but also a proof of the importance, 
which the bodily organization holds in the 
Christian system. Christianity is far from 
that comfortless view, which considers the 
tody as the prison of the human spirit, and 
which leads to monkish asceticism ; and it is 



176 BURIAL OF JESUS. 

just as far removed from that empty no- 
tion, that sin came merely from the charms 
of sensuality, and hence the soul falls into 
death together with the body — a view, 
which favors Epicureanism. The Gospel 
considers it as the object of the union of the 
soul with the body, to glorify the latter into 
a temple of the Holy Spirit, so that the 
saying of a spiritual natural philosopher is 
thoroughly biblical ; " without body, no 
soul, without embodiment, no salvation." 

According to the Jewish usage, the bod- 
ies of those executed must be removed on 
the day of their death. Since it was now 
the preparation day before the Sabbath, the 
Jews commanded that those crucified should 
be put to death. It was customary to hast- 
en the death of the crucified, who were 
generally persons of the meanest condition, 
by breaking their limbs with clubs, a single 
blow of which upon the breast ended the 
unhappy being's sorrows. Pilate probably 
sent a separate detachment of soldiers for 
this purpose ; these performed their office 
upon the two thieves ; but when they came 



BURIAL OF JESUS. 177 

to Jesus, (whom they therefore had not seen 
expire,) they found him already dead. In 
order to be sure of his death, one of these 
soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and 
blood and water flowed forth. They did 
not otherwise touch him, so that his body, 
by a remarkable conjunction of circumstan- 
ces, was preserved without mutilation. John 
was an eye witness of this occurrence. 
With the strongest emphasis he gives as- 
surance of the truth of what he relates, 
with the view of thereby impressing faith 
upon the minds of the readers. He also 
quotes two passages from the Old Testa- 
ment, which point to these events. A 
bone of him shall not be broken. Then 
shall they look on him whom they pierced.. 
We now ask, why it was, that John lays 
so much weight upon this fact. It may in- 
deed be believed, that this was intended to 
serve as a proof of the actual death of 
Christ, as it has been regarded in modern 
times ; but we find no evidence, that the 
reality of Christ's death was doubted in the 
ancient Church, and this view is not there- 
in 



178 BURIAL OF JESUS. 

fore according to the sense of Christian an- 
tiquity. It is far more probable, that this 
statement of John had reference to the 
Gnostic sect of Docetae, and was intended 
to establish the reality of the bodily nature 
of Christ, in opposition to the doctrine, that 
he was only a spiritual appearance. The 
remarkable manner, in which John treats 
symbolically of the blood and water, which 
flowed from the wound in Christ's side, will 
be considered, when we treat of the first 
Epistle of John. The question now is, 
what does the passage before us declare ? 
Since men have begun to doubt, whether 
our Lord actually died upon the cross, it 
has been usual to insist upon John's state- 
ment in order to prove, that the point of the 
spear which reached the heart of Christ and 
the pericardium, which is filled with water, 
must actually have killed Jesus, had he not 
yet expired. So much is clear, that it was 
the soldier's design to kill him by the blow, 
in case that he had only swooned. But it 
is certainly more advisable not to make so 
important an inquiry, as that relating to 



BURIAL OF JESUS. 179 

Christ's real death, depend on outward 
events, which, by a skeptical mind, may be 
viewed now in this way, now in that. Since 
the fact of death cannot be proved from 
outward marks, we must resort for proof to 
the inner grounds, which will have a more 
particular consideration in the history of the 
resurrection. We content ourselves with 
remarking, that it must be considered a pe- 
culiar mark of the divine influence, that the 
Saviour's heart should be opened, and the 
fountains of blood in his hands and feet 
be pierced, without the organization of his 
body being destroyed or dismembered. 

Here the Synopsists mention the exertions 
of some distinguished friends of Jesus, in 
regard to his body. John mentions Nico- 
demus, the same who formerly sought Jesus 
by night ; but the principal personage was 
Joseph of Arimathea. This worthy man 
was a disciple of Jesus, but the fear of man 
had hindered his openly avowing his faith. 
But what he had not been willing to do for 
the living, he was willing to do for the 
dead. He asked of Pilate the body of 



180 BURIAL OF JESUS. 

Jesus. After Pilate had learned from the 
centurion, who had been commissioned to 
hasten the death of the crucified, that Je- 
sus was dead, he gave his body to Joseph. 
After Joseph had obtained the precious 
gift, he wrapped the body of Jesus in a linen 
robe with spices, and placed it in a new sepul- 
chre in his garden, and rolled a stone before 
it. It seems to be stated as something hon- 
orable, that the grave was new and unoccu- 
pied ; it was probably his family sepulchre, 
which Joseph devoted to the body of Jesus. 
The whole proceeding took place in haste, 
since the Sabbath was approaching. Mean- 
while some of the anxious women, who had 
followed their beloved Master faithfully from 
Galilee, yet followed him to the grave, where 
they, overcome with sorrow, bowed down to 
satisfy themselves by seeing how his body 
was placed. Upon their return, they pro- 
vided precious ointments, in order after 
Sabbath to prepare the beloved body for its 
final rest. On the Sabbath day they abstain- 
ed from labor, according to the injunction 
of the Mosaic law. The graves of the 



BURIAL OF JESUS, 181 

Jews were hewn in the rock; a block of 
stone closed the door or horizontal en- 
trance. 

For the friends of our Lord, this Sabbath, 
now coming on, was a day of peace, after 
the agony and strife of the preceding days ; 
but the enemies of Christ did not rest ; an- 
guish of conscience again struck the heart 
of Pilate. They told him of the prediction 
of the resurrection, and demanded a watch 
until the third day. What feelings must 
have thrilled through Pilate at this communi- 
cation, may be judged from the fact, that he 
was so deeply moved, when he heard that 
Jesus called himself the Son of God. Per- 
haps he gave permission the more readily, 
in order to have surer news of w r hat should 
transpire. A return from the dead was cer- 
tainly in theory the most improbable thing 
to him ; but often the Divinity so presses in- 
to the skeptical mind, by way of the heart, 
that the most skeptical often becomes very 
superstitious, while the inextinguishable feel- 
ing of the reality of the unseen world pre- 
vails in opposition to his theory. Modern 



182 BURIAL OF JESUS. 

critics have disputed the fact, that a watch 
of Roman soldiers was placed around our 
Lord's grave, and have sought to impugn 
the authority of the passage in Matthew, 
which states this circumstance. But all 
these attempts appear without justification 
in truth. Matthew, who as an eye witness 
at Jerusalem at a time in which many per- 
sons lived, who had known the fact, could 
not give an entirely false account of so pub- 
lic an occurrence. 



PART SECOND. 

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 
(Matt, xxviii. ; Mark xv. ; Luke xxiv. ; John xx., xxi.) 

As death and the shedding of blood 
were essential parts of our Lord's work of 
salvation, so must death necessarily be 
overcome by a subsequent resurrection. So 
that death and resurrection represent the 
two halves of his united work, the negative, 
as well as the positive. It is accordingly 
evident, that the resurrection represents an 
essential point in the development of the 
sublime life of the Saviour, and it is thus, 
that the history of the apostolic church 
represents it. The resurrection was the one 
great fact, which the Apostles felt themselves 
peculiarly bound to declare. After the as- 



184 RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 

cension and the pouring out of the Holy 
Spirit on the day of the Pentecost, which 
were the first acts of the glorified Saviour, 
the disciples, who, a few days before at the 
arrest of Jesus, appeared so weak, now ap- 
pear thoroughly settled in mind, and fully 
armed with unconquerable boldness, and also 
with wisdom, peace, serenity. The rise of 
the Christian Church is an incontrovertible, 
actual proof, that a great and astonishing 
event must have taken place, which could 
give rise to so persevering a zeal for such 
an undertaking. 

But this importance attaches to the resur- 
rection, chiefly, if we establish the fact that 
the Saviour did not rise with the mortal 
body, which he bore before the resurrection. 
If we consider the resurrection, as many 
well-meaning people do, and suppose the 
actually dead Saviour was restored to life 
by an act of the almighty power, without 
any change taking place in his body, it can- 
not be shown wherein the weight of this 
fact lies ; the raising of Lazarus was just 
such an event according to this view, and 



RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 185 

Paul could not justly have represented 
Christ's resurrection, as the foundation of 
faith, as the seal of the victory over death 
and the grave, if the body of Christ were 
still no more than mortal. 

The defenders of this view are accustomed 
to consider the ascension, as the period of 
the glorification of the Saviour's body and 
of the victory over death ; but this cannot 
be, because the Apostles universally consid- 
er the ascension only a consequence of the 
resurrection, which last was for them the 
great essential fact. Certainly this mode 
of viewing the resurrection, which Tholuck 
maintains, could not be entertained for a 
moment, if the statements regarding the ap- 
pearances of the risen Saviour did not seem 
to speak for its authenticity. By these it 
appears, that the Lord had a body of flesh 
and bone, that he still bore the mark of the 
wounds, that he took food, and that his 
frame in all respects appeared like a com- 
mon earthly body. These expressions and 
statements do not seem to be suited to a glo- 
rified body. But important as these remarks 



186 RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 

at first sight appear, a more careful examina- 
tion shows their fallacy. 

In the first place we must remember, that 
the spiritual body is not to be confounded 
with spirit itself. According to the ex- 
press representation of the Apostle Paul, 
the natural body became by the resurrection 
a spiritual body, but yet remained a true 
body. We must moreover consider, that 
the body of Christ from his very birth, al- 
though so similar to our own, was in many 
respects different from ours, and therefore 
the change, which it went through in the 
process of glorification, becomes less surpris- 
ing ; and thus, on the one hand, it is explain- 
ed how the disciples were able to recognise 
him and observe the marks of the wounds, 
and, on the other hand, that they observed 
so great a change in him, as often not to 
know him. This view gains more weight, if 
we consider, that the process of glorification 
continued through forty days, and was first 
entirely completed upon the ascension. Fi- 
nally, we are not to consider the remark in 
the Passion History regarding our Lord's 



RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 187 

taking food, as implying any need of it, but 
merely as intended to convince those pres- 
ent of the reality of his body. Besides it 
is supposed in scripture (Rev. xxii.) that the 
glorified body takes food, but the physical 
process is expressly excluded. (1 Corinthians 
vi. 13.) 

The difficulties therefore, which attach to 
the opinion of the glorification of the Lord's 
body by the resurrection, may be set aside, 
and are not of such a character, as to lead 
us away from the essential point in this 
event, that the Saviour must have risen with 
the impossibility of dying again, which could 
take place only by the glorification of his 
body. A very different view is held by 
those, who are not merely in doubt as to the 
precise moment of the glorification, but who 
mistrust, if they do not deny, the resurrec- 
tion itself. Modern philosophy, alas ! in 
its prevailing idealism, has not been able to 
acknowledge the idea of a glorification of 
body and of matter in general ; only a few 
men, who have been as much distinguished 
for naturalists, as philosophers, like Schubert 



188 RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 

in Munich, and Steffen in Breslau, have 
profoundly recognised the truth and im- 
portance of this idea. The Holy Scrip- 
tures know nothing of that dualism, which 
insists upon an absolute separation of spirit 
and matter. As spirit appears in man uni- 
ted with matter, it is apparent, that the 
former can defile or consecrate the latter, 
and in fine can glorify it. Instead of ac- 
knowledging this very striking idea, and ex- 
amining into it by their speculative pene- 
tration, many have attempted to place the 
whole concern in the realm of mythic para- 
ble, and to interpret the language of the 
passage in the Gospel, as expressing symbo- 
lically the idea of a return from the world 
of spirit. But the plain narratives of the 
Evangelists, which originated in a period 
purely historical, and were composed by eye 
witnesses, stand in most decided contrast 
with the mythic theory. 

After these observations, that view is yet 
to be examined, which does not put a pecul- 
iar meaning upon the resurrection, so much 
as plainly deny it. One class of the defend- 



RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 189 

ers of this view, (Dr. Paulus and Henne- 
burg,) hold to the fact, but see in the re- 
surrection nothing but a recovery from a 
swoon. According to the view first touched 
upon, which supposed Jesus to have risen 
with his mortal body, this last opinion is 
with great difficulty refuted on mere exter- 
nal grounds ; for the medical proof of the 
reality of the death of Christ, even from 
the wounds, which the spear inflicted, is at 
the least not imperative. But, on the con- 
trary, according to our view, this hypothesis 
of Paulus has not the slightest consequence. 
Since, even supposing the Saviour only ap- 
parently dead, this does not change the im- 
port of the event; since this importance 
does not depend on the mere return to life, 
(this has taken place in regard to others, 
without any such great weight being laid 
upon their case,) but on the glorification of 
body attending that return, and on the con- 
sequent impossibility of again dying. This, 
our view, supposes a peculiar influence of 
the Deity to have been exercised in the re- 
surrection, and cannot be eluded by the 



190 RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 

untenable hypothesis of an apparent death. 
Setting aside all uncertain medical proof, 
we have, besides these, in the predictions of 
Christ before his death, a foundation, that 
cannot be shaken, upon which to rest our 
conviction of the reality of his death. As in 
the case of Lazarus, and all the other dead, 
who were raised, we have only the word 
of Christ to assure us, that they were dead, 
since he openly declares, that they were 
merely asleep, in instances where death had 
not ensued ; so in regard to Christ's re- 
surrection, his word is the only sure testimo- 
ny, the only firm rock, on which the cer- 
tainty rests ; He was dead, and is again 
made alive. (Rev. i. 18.) 

No effort indeed has been wanting in the 
attempt to remove the clear unequivocal 
declarations of Jesus of his approaching 
death and resurrection. But the grounds, 
upon which they have sought to make it 
probable, that these expressions were placed 
in our Lord's mouth by the disciples after 
the event, are so weak, that nothing but the 
earnest conviction, that, in this way alone, 



RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 191 

the great fact itself can be made doubtful, 
could persuade those engaged in such at- 
tempts to attach any importance to them. 

It only remains to touch upon the view, 
which has been so noised abroad, by those 
who use the contradictions between the 
four Evangelists to show a falsehood in the 
whole affair. But the narration would be 
far more liable to suspicion on this ground, 
if it were entirely devoid of contradictions 
in unimportant particulars, than at present, 
where there is some deviation in collateral 
particulars, and perfect coincidence in the 
great essential points. Even if the contra- 
dictions were irreconcilable, this would not 
impair the credibility of the essentials of the 
narration. But the explanation of a single 
one will prove, that the differences are but 
independent statements of the same pro- 
ceedings, and such as always must occur, 
where several independent witnesses testify 
of the same event. 



192 HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 



SECTION I. 

HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 

(Matt, xxviii. 1 - 15 ; Mark xvi. 1 - 11 ; Luke xxiv. 
1-12; John xx. 1-16.) 

The act of the resurrection itself, like 
every new process of creation, is veiled in 
obscurity. The writers of the New Testa- 
ment merely state what they saw, after the 
grave had become empty. Silent and un- 
observed, the creative energy did its work, 
and hovered around the person of the Lord, 
like a heavenly robe of light, worthy to 
array the king of the world of light. While 
the Lord was resting from his labor upon 
that great Sabbath, his friends, both male 
and female, passed the day in hallowed 
communion, still thinking they had lost the 
beloved of their soul. But this error, ac- 
cording to which they must have concluded, 
that Jesus was not the Messiah, did not de- 



HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 193 

prive them of their love. They hastened, 
at early day break, to finish the anointing of 
the Lord's body. 

In the description of the approach of the 
women to the grave, some remarkable dif- 
ferences between the Evangelists present 
themselves. As to the Synopsists, or Mat- 
thew, Mark, and Luke, they, on the whole, 
coincide. Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the 
wife of Cleopas, (Luke speaks of Joanna, 
the wife of Chusa, and Mark introduces 
Salome,) go with spices to the grave at sun- 
rise. On the way they talk of the difficulty 
of removing the stone from the grave. But 
when they approached, they see the stone 
already moved away, and behold an angel 
near the grave. (Here Luke first differs 
from Matthew and Mark, in naming two 
angels, while they name but one.) These 
angels address the women, inform them of 
the resurrection, and charge them to make 
it known to the disciples. (Mark states, 
" neither said they anything to any one.") 
Here Luke breaks in, and says, that the 
disciples did not believe the report of the 
13 



194 HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 

women, while Peter hastened to the grave. 
But the two others add, that Christ himself 
appeared ; Matthew observes that he met 
the women returning ; Mark speaks only of 
Mary Magdalene, without stating that she 
had separated from the other women. If 
we had only these accounts of the Synop- 
sists, the relation might be regarded as being 
entirely harmonious. As to the number of 
angels, it is easy for him, who wishes unani- 
mity in such minute particulars, to suppose 
that Matthew and Mark spoke only of the 
angel who addressed the women, but Luke 
made mention of both heavenly messengers. 
The expression of Mark also, " they said 
nothing to any one," may be easily recon- 
ciled by limiting its application to that imme- 
diate moment — a meaning, which, the fol- 
lowing remark, " for they were afraid," 
plainly sanctions. The departure of Mark 
from the other Evangelists, who mentions 
only Mary Magdalene, and remarks that 
Jesus first appeared to her, seems most im- 
portant. But if we had not the narrative 
of John, this difference would not be essen- 



HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 195 

tial, since we may consider Mary to have 
withdrawn from the other women without 
any mention being made of it, and thus may 
reconcile the seeming contradiction. But 
the whole matter is entirely changed when 
we compare the narrations of the Synop- 
sists with the statement of John. Accord- 
ing to the latter, Mary Magdalene went 
alone, while it was yet dark, to the grave. 
When she found the stone rolled away, she 
hurried b< ck to Peter and John, and ex- 
pressed to them her anxiety, lest the body 
had been stolen away. Hereupon both 
these hastened to the grave ; John arrived 
first, but Peter ventured before him to enter 
the grave. After they had convinced them- 
selves, that the body of the Lord was not 
there, they returned ; but Mary remained 
by the grave weeping, and as she sat there, 
she saw two angels, and soon after Jesus 
himself, whereupon she hastened back to 
the disciples, and told them what they had 
seen. Upon first sight, there appears no 
resemblance between this statement and 
that of the Synopsists ; only in the cursory 



196 HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 

observation (Luke xxiv. 12) about Peter, 
who entered the grave, there is an agree- 
ment with John's record, and also in the 
statement of Mark, that Jesus appeared 
first to Mary. But upon a more full consid- 
eration, it is manifest, that this apparently 
great discrepancy is resolved into a perfect 
harmony, and the statements bear such a 
relation to each other, as must always be 
the case, when several persons speak of the 
same event, according to what they have 
seen. Even the accounts, which various 
witnesses give of present events, are almost 
always different, since each must see differ- 
ently, according as he looks from a different 
point of view. Griesbach and Hess have 
already formed the following harmony of 
the Evangelists in opposition to those un- 
philosophical objections, which have been 
raised against the truth of the resurrection 
on account of these discrepancies. 

The narrations of the Synopsists form 
two courses of events connected with each 
other ; John tells merely what he experi- 
enced, the Synopsists learned what they 



HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 19"* 

relate probably from the women. By the 
simple supposition, that Mary Magdalene 
separated from the other women, came first 
to the grave, and then called Peter and 
John, the parallel character of the two nar- 
ratives becomes clear and evident. The 
course of the events is then as follows. 
Early in the morning, Mary Magdalene and 
the other women go to the grave together, 
but Mary outstripped her companions, and 
found the grave empty to her great aston- 
ishment. Immediately Mary hastens to Pe- 
ter and John, and meanwhile the other wo- 
men arrive, see the angels, and hear their 
words. After their withdrawal, Mary re- 
turns with the two disciples ; after they look 
into the grave, they return to the house, 
but Mary still remains at the grave weeping, 
and hereupon the angels appear to her and 
then the Lord himself. After this appear- 
ance to Mary alone, the Saviour revealed 
himself to the heart-stricken women, on 
their way back. By this view, all contra- 
dictions disappear ; there is but one diffi- 
culty remaining how it is, if the events 



198 HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 

were so near each other, that Mark could so 
expressly and decidedly declare, that the 
Lord appeared first to Mary ; the other 
women saw him about the same time, only 
a very little later, so little, that it was not to 
be peculiarly remarked that he appeared 
first to Mary. If we consider, that here 
Mark departs from Matthew, and that the 
latter only relates, that Jesus showed himself 
to the returning women, it then appears in 
regard to this point more likely, that Mat- 
thew has somewhat unsatisfactorily extended, 
to all the women, Christ's appearance to 
Mary alone. But this discrepancy is so 
trifling, that it only serves to confirm the 
freedom and independence of the Evange- 
lists, whose statements are satisfactory in all 
important points. 

The day in which the women went to 
the grave is declared unanimously by the 
Evangelists, to have been the first day of 
the week, or Sunday. According to Mat- 
thew and Mark, the women were told to in- 
form the disciples, that Jesus would meet 
them in Galilee. The purpose of this direc- 



HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 199 

tion was doubtless, none else, than the Lord's 
idea, that the retirement of Galilee would 
be a more appropriate place for the disciples 
to receive his last charge, than the tumultu- 
ous city of Jerusalem. The first appear- 
ances of the Lord were only intended to 
convince the disciples, that he had arisen. 
Mark mentions the appearance of Jesus to 
Mary Magdalene, with the remark, that he 
had cured her of seven devils. This takes 
away our surprise, that the gracious Saviour 
should reveal himself first to the poor and 
miserable, who had most needed his aid, 
and who by receiving it had been most 
inflamed with love for him. But the disci- 
ples were so utterly deprived of their pres- 
ence of mind by Christ's death, that they 
could give no credence to the glad tidings 
of his resurrection, of which he had so often 
forewarned them. 

When Peter and John looked into the 
grave and found it empty, their first impulse 
probably was to believe, like Mary, that the 
body had been stolen away. But when they 
saw no marks of violence, but the grave clothes 



200 HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 

lying in perfect order, they probably believed 
in the Lord's resurrection. At least John 
believed. 

When Mary sat weeping by the tomb and 
saw the angels, and soon after the Lord, she 
did not probably recognise them as such. 
She certainly did not recognise the Lord, 
but seeing him in the garden she mistook 
him for the gardener. This might have 
been because it was not yet fully light, but 
more probably because she did not expect to 
see any one there but the gardener. 

Our Lord's remark to Mary, " Touch me 
not, for I have not ascended to my Father," 
has led to much discussion, and received 
many and various interpretations. Chrys- 
ostom, and Augustine, whose view has been 
adopted by Calvin and Beza, consider the 
passage to mean, " Do not concern yourself 
with my earthly appearance, since I shall be 
exalted into a heavenly." Others consider 
the word " touch" as referring to Mary's 
homage ; pray not to me now, for I am not 
a heavenly being. Schleiermacher's view of 
the passage appears to me the right one. 



HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 201 

•■ Do not think of delaying me here, my 
course is onward, my glorification is not 
finished. I am not ascended to my Father. " ; 
There appears something repulsive in this 
remark, and therefore the Lord takes away 
this impression by the loving message to the 
disciples ; •'• I ascend unto your Father and 
my Father ; and to my God and your God." 
As I have been as you are. you shall become 
as I am. by a new birth, true children of 
God. my brethren ! 



202 DAY OF THE RESURRECTION. 



SECTION II. 



FURTHER APPEARANCES OF CHRIST ON 
THE DAY OF RESURRECTION. 



(Luke xxiv. 13-43; Mark xvi. 12-14; John 
xx. 19-29.) 



Our Lord would according to his prom- 
ise probably have shown himself to his dis- 
ciples only in the quiet retirement of Gali- 
lee, if they could have thus attained a liv- 
ing faith in the resurrection ; but the state- 
ments of the women, first thought worthy to 
see the Saviour, did not suffice to raise in 
the disciples a faith, that could not be shak- 
en. John may have been the only one, who 
was convinced by Mary's story. After the 
first day, the risen Saviour seems to have ap- 
peared to the disciples no more in Jerusalem ; 
the other known appearances probably took 
place in Galilee. Yet in order to have as 



DAY OF THE RESURRECTION. 203 

satisfactory an idea of the communication 
of our Lord with his disciples, as the docu- 
ments at hand will allow, we must consider 
more closely the several difficulties which 
» present themselves in this department of 
Evangelical history. 

The first question that presents itself is, 
whether the Evangelists have recorded all 
the appearances of our Lord, or whether 
they were far more numerous, than we are 
told. If we consider 1 Corinthians xv. 6, 
&,c, we find the Apostle mentions some ap- 
pearances of Jesus, of which the Evange- 
lists say nothing, that is, those, which Peter 
and John beheld. But the omission in the 
Evangelists is very easily explained on the 
ground, that the Saviour appeared to these 
two disciples for purposes, that were merely 
individual. He appeared to Peter probably 
on account of his denial, and to James (the 
brother of the Lord) because he had not 
always believed in Jesus. Both appearances 
had an individual aim, and therefore did not 
possess an universal interest. 

Besides these two, Paul mentions another 



204 DAY OF THE RESURRECTION. 

appearance of Christ, which occurred to up- 
wards of five hundred of the brethren, many 
of whom were alive, when Paul wrote. We 
may remark in passing, that no trifling proof 
of the reality of the resurrection is given by • 
these numerous witnesses. But this appear- 
ance is probably the same, as that which the 
Synopsists mention, as having taken place 
in Galilee. It is highly probable to me, that 
no farther appearances occurred, than those 
of which we have information. Jesus show- 
ed himself, as he had promised, only to his 
disciples, and even to them very seldom. 
His communication with his disciples there- 
fore bears a peculiar character. To the 
Pharisees, and all who had not decidedly 
turned towards Jesus, his resurrection was 
but a sign of Jonas, unintelligible and dark. 
Our Lord could not reveal himself in his 
majesty to them, since if they had again 
resisted him, their guilt would have been 
heightened, and even if they had gone over 
to him, it is evident, that such a change of 
opinion would not have been real and heart- 
felt, but only induced by fear. But if any 



DAY OF THE RESURRECTION. 205 

one was led by the influence of the risen 
Saviour to give honor to the truth, without 
having seen him, it is to be supposed that 
such an one had turned towards the light 
with his inward being. Nothing would 
have been gained therefore by our Lord's 
appearing to all or any of his enemies. 

But as to the disciples, they had suffi- 
ciently enjoyed the constant company of 
their Lord ; it only remained for Jesus to 
give them the final instruction and consecra- 
tion in order to form them into perfect in- 
struments for building up the Kingdom of 
God. Hence the Lord appeared to them 
after the resurrection only at a few hallowed 
seasons, in an imposing and mysterious man- 
ner. We may perceive, that the disciples 
were seized with a secret awe, when they 
saw the Saviour, which is strangely mingled 
with their joy in possessing the beloved of 
their soul. Yet they knew that they possess- 
ed him in a different manner, for when the 
Saviour left them at the ascension, they were 
full of joy, and by no means sorrowful as 
before, since they knew, that Christ was 



206 THE WALK TO EMMAUS. 

still with them in spirit and was exalted to 
God's right hand. 

On account of obscure notions of the life 
of the risen Lord, it has been asked in mod- 
ern times, (since ancient Christendom had 
too just views of the resurrection to ask 
such questions,) where was the Lord, and 
how was he nourished in the interval between 
his resurrection and ascension ? But if we 
consider, that the Saviour, even before his 
resurrection, walked over the waves of the 
sea, and fed thousands with a few loaves, 
we shall be convinced, that the glorified 
Redeemer was now still less bound by physi- 
cal laws, and that therefore human wants 
and necessities had no application to the na- 
ture of the glorified One. 

The first of Christ's appearances, on 
the day of resurrection, is that which Luke 
particularly relates, and to which Mark 
briefly refers. Two disciples, the name of 
one of whom was Cleopas, were walking 
towards Emmaus in the afternoon. This 
Emmaus, according to Josephus, was a little 
village a Sabbath day's journey from Jeru- 



THE WALK TO EMMAUS. 207 

salem, and is not to be confounded with a 
town of the same name, which was twenty 
miles distant from Jerusalem, and which 
was afterwards called Nicopolis. They were 
conversing upon the events of the preceding 
days, when Jesus joined them, without be- 
ing recognised. Luke says, that their eyes 
were holden, that they could not see him, 
but Mark relates, that Jesus appeared in 
another form. We may acccept both re- 
marks, and believe that the Lord veiled him- 
self from them, and their eyes were holden. 
It is utterly unscriptural to refer the disfigura- 
tion to the effect of pain and trouble ; it is 
rather to be supposed, that the peculiar ap- 
pearance consisted partly in the glorified state, 
and was partly designed. It is a harder ques- 
tion to decide, why did the Lord conceal him- 
self, and why, as soon as recognised, did he 
withdraw ? The cause probably lay in the 
state of the disciples' mind ; they seem to 
have been wholly wrong regarding the Mes- 
siahship of Christ, and needed therefore some 
strong confirmation of their faith. The Sa- 
viour gave them this, while he explained to 



208 THE WALK TO EMMAUS. 

them the scriptural doctrine concerning the 
Messiah's atoning death. Had Jesus made 
himself known before he had convinced 
them' by weight of scriptural evidence, his 
appearance would have so overcome them, 
as to disturb the power of calm understand- 
ing. Therefore after the main object had 
been gained, he revealed his person. The 
Saviour began his conversation with them 
by asking the cause of their sadness. Cleo- 
pas replied, and mentioned the great events 
of the preceding days. The doubts they 
show as to Christ's being the Messiah, who 
was to deliver Israel, do not imply they 
doubted his prophetic character. Many of 
the prophets had died ; and Christ's death, 
while it destroyed their hopes of his being 
the restorer of Israel, did not destroy their 
faith in his prophetic dignity. In their 
minds, the words, redeemed Israel, had a 
very narrow, perhaps partly a political sense. 
The words, which follow in Luke, allude to 
the rumors of the resurrection, to which 
however these disciples would not assent. 
Their words confirm the two occurrences 



THE WALK TO EMMAUS. 209 

with the women, which the Synopsists re- 
late, and with Peter and John, which the 
latter relates, and this testimony is all the 
more important, since it cannot have been 
introduced designedly into the relation of 
Luke, for he does speak of what occurred 
to Peter and John on the day of resurrec- 
tion. 

To this lamentation of the disciples, the 
Lord addresses language both of rebuke and 
consolation. He immediately blames the 
insensibility of the two disciples to the pre- 
dictions, so clearly made by the prophets. 
Then he adduces particular passages of scrip- 
ture regarding himself, and explains them. 
The sufferings of the Messiah are shown to 
be necessarily connected with his whole 
mission and. his glory. This sacred neces- 
sity was expressed in the prophets of the 
Old Testament ; they refer to the death, as 
well as to the resurrection of the Lord. The 
Saviour now wished to withdraw, since his 
object was attained, but his words must 
have filled their hearts with the wondrous 
power of love ; they could not part from 
14 



210 THE ASSEMBLY OF DISCIPLES. 

the beloved stranger. He therefore went 
in with them, and revealed himself while in 
the act of breaking bread, and immediately 
disappeared from their sight. Hereupon 
the disciples hastened away to the place of 
meeting of the Apostles, where they were 
met by the news, that the Lord had ap- 
peared to Peter, which they returned with 
an account of what they had experienced. 

Hardly had the two disciples entered the 
assembly, when the Lord himself stood in 
their midst. In the account of this appear- 
ance, Luke and John mutually help each 
other out. The last describes principally 
the scene, of which Luke says nothing, 
while the latter insists particularly upon the 
reality of the Lord's body, to which the 
former only alludes. As to the place of as- 
sembly, John relates that the doors were 
closed from fear of the Jews. There is 
evidently something wonderful in Christ's 
entering, while the doors were closed. Up- 
on the Lord's entrance and the salutation, 
" peace be unto you," a holy calm must have 
pervaded the disciples, and they felt them- 



THE ASSEMBLY OF DISCIPLES. 211 

selves to be in the immediate presence of 
the Holy One ; and hence then the suspi- 
cion, that it might be a spirit in the form of 
Jesus. The idea of a spirit may have been 
as obscure to the Apostles, as that of ghost 
is with us, while they both refer to a bodi- 
less apparition. This Docetic delusion must 
be removed by the Lord. The essence of 
the resurrection did not consist in the return 
of the spiritual principle, but in the renewal 
of bodily life. Because the Saviour, in 
proof of the reality of his body, showed 
them his hands and feet, and finally ate be- 
fore them ; it cannot be justly argued, as 
has been before said, that the body could 
not have been glorified, for the glorified 
body is still a body. But the eating is not 
to be regarded, as springing from real want, 
but merely as a mode of proving the reality 
of his body. The ground, which many 
highly estimable theologians take in explain- 
ing such passages, so as to deny that the 
body of Christ was raised in a glorified state, 
consists in the fact, that they do not believe 
in a glorification of the corporeal nature, 



212 THE ASSEMBLY OF DISCIPLES. 

but maintain a complete annihilation of it 
by the spirit. The extreme tendency of 
our times to idealize, leads to this view, so 
decidedly opposed to the Holy Scriptures. 

The passage, that follows, is highly char- 
acteristic, and wrung from the very depths 
of human feeling. The disciples rejoiced, 
and dared not really believe, it was the 
true Jesus, whom they saw before them. 
Man has a secret horror of everything 
purely spiritual, everything devoid of a cor- 
poreal dwelling. But as soon as they were 
convinced of its bodily reality, the appari- 
tion became to them, for the first time, dear 
and precious, and a source of blessed joy. 
John does not mention this transaction, be- 
cause he wished to tell the same event more 
explicitly concerning Thomas, and commu- 
nicates instead of it another occurrence 
very remarkable. He relates, that the Lord 
again exclaimed, "Peace be with you!" 
then reminded them of their mission, and 
breathing upon them said, " Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost." In these and the words which 
follow, the installation of the Apostles and 



THE ASSEMBLY OF DISCIPLES. 213 

the bestowal of their exalted prerogative are 
repeated. That something of this kind 
went forth from the risen Lord, seems in 
the highest degree probable, since the disci- 
ples were to be confirmed by him anew, as 
had been promised before, but this occasion 
seems little suited to the day of resurrection, 
since Thomas was absent at the time, and 
yet was not to be excluded from the college of 
Apostles. It appears far more suitable, that 
such a consecration should be repeated at 
the end of the forty days, since the renewal 
of the election of the Apostles would stand 
out, as a majestic closing event. The ac- 
counts of the Synopsists, regarding the last 
commands of Jesus, would well accord with 
such an idea, by which they were authorized 
anew, as his messengers. I am almost in- 
clined in this place to suppose, (what may 
also appear from the Synopsists,) that John 
briefly recounts and attributes to this appear- 
ance something, which occurred subsequent- 
ly. The following account about Thomas 
is not opposed to this, since it is evidently 
but a supplementary relation, intended to 



214 THE ASSEMBLY OF DISCIPLES. 

show how this disciple was led to believe in 
the resurrection of Christ. In the twentieth 
chapter, thirtieth verse, John closes his Gos- 
pel, since the last chapter or the twenty- 
first is a later addition. Besides I consider 
Tholuck's view of the words, receive the 
Holy Ghost, quite untenable, which refers 
the outpouring of the spirit expected to the 
day of Pentecost. The symbolic act of 
breathing would be idle, were it not attended 
by an actual influence of the spirit. The 
communication of the spirit to the disciples, 
is to be considered as in gradual progres- 
sion ; as the disciples already on their first 
mission received new spiritual powers, so 
the Lord increased these, until on the day of 
Pentecost, the fulness of the spirit was 
poured out. With the possession of the 
spirit, the power to forgive and not forgive 
or to retain sins, was immediately united, 
because in the nature of the spirit, those 
conditions inhered, by which such power 
could be alone explicable and secure from 
abuse. The symbolic act of breathing is 
not again met with in the New Testament, 



APPEARANCE TO THOMAS. 215 

but it is plainly connected with the idea of 
spirit, which in the Greek is expressed by 
the same word as breath, from which in all 
languages, the phrases expressive of spiritual 
communications are derived. 

It has already been stated in the beginning 
of this section, that probably all later ap- 
pearances of Christ did not take place in 
Jerusalem. I attribute to that place, how- 
ever, the apparition, which occured to Thom- 
as eight days after the resurrection. John 
mentions this less on its own account, than 
for the sake of explaining the circumstance 
of the previous absence of Thomas. At the 
same time, the minute description of John, 
how Thomas was convinced of the reality of 
the Lord's body, must have some reference 
to those of John's readers, who were inclined 
to the Docetic heresy, and would hardly be- 
lieve in the Lord's real humanity. It has 
often been remarked, that Thomas shows the 
supremacy of the reflecting understanding, so 
that he may be called the Rationalist among 
the Apostles. To such persons, the actual 
reception of Divine influence is usually very 



216 APPEARANCE TO THOMAS. 

difficult, since in them the active spiritual 
power is accustomed to exercise supremacy 
over the receptive faculty, and to lead the 
mind to seek correct ideas about Divine 
things, rather than their actual possession. 
But if the Divine power actually takes effect 
in their soul, then the edifice of opinions 
raised by the understanding is forcibly 
thrown down, and the recognition of a 
higher principle is expressed in all the bold- 
ness of faith. Thus when Thomas was 
convinced, he exclaimed, " My Lord and 
my God." Many as the attempts have 
been to interpret these words of Thomas, 
as a mere ejaculation, without any doctrinal 
meaning, yet all these attempts must go to 
wreck together upon the grammatical con- 
nexion, and upon the psychological aspect of 
the character of Thomas. That the name of 
God, as is common with us, should be em- 
ployed by the Jews as a mere exclamation, 
is utterly inexplicable, and on account of 
the strictness of their law, incredible ; they 
would have regarded it as a transgression of 
the command, " Thou shalt not take the name 



APPEARANCE TO THOMAS. 217 

of thy God in vain." The expression, " he 
said to him," declares a reference to the per- 
son of Christ, and it only remains for us to 
believe that Thomas called Jesus God. Tho- 
luck observes in regard to this, that Thomas 
applied to Jesus a term, which expressed 
more, than he would have said in a season 
of calm reflection. Were such a remark 
to be applied to the former disposition of 
Thomas, I would willingly agree to it. But 
to apply it to his subsequent condition, as if 
he had said too much in a moment of excited 
feeling, is altogether unphilosophical. Na- 
tures like that of Thomas, when the heav- 
enly influence had once overcome them, 
would be the more firmly convinced of its 
power, in proportion to the very resistance 
with which they had before opposed it. We 
must therefore regard this occasion of the 
manifestation of Christ, as the moment, when 
Thomas was entirely illumined by the Di- 
vine light, renewed in the very depths of his 
being, so that the Lord revealed himself not 
only outwardly, but inwardly, and in all his 
Divine majesty. The appearances of Jesus 



218 EFFECT OF THESE APPEARANCES. 

had thus the most exalted consequences; 
in Peter, James, and Thomas, they finished 
the renewal and regeneration, that had al- 
ready been gradually advancing within them. 
As to their effect upon these disciples, they 
stand parallel to the appearance of Christ, 
which occurred to Paul on his way to Da- 
mascus. The reply of Jesus confirmed the 
yielding conviction, which the Apostles en- 
tertained of the event, while it reminded 
him, that his doubt originated in sin, name- 
ly, from the one-sided predominance of one 
faculty, the critical understanding, by which 
the sensibility to Divine influence was lim- 
ited. 



ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS. 219 



SECTION III. 



CLOSING VERSES OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 



(Matt, xxviii. 16-20; Mark xv. 16-20; Luke xxiv. 
44-53; John xx. 30,31.) 



If we compare the endings of the four 
Gospels, we find that they end in a certain 
indefiniteness. Matthew (xxviii. 16,) ex- 
pressly states, that the Lord, as he promised, 
appeared to his disciples in Galilee. But 
since there is no mention made of the as- 
cension, it remains in the dark, what the 
connexion is between the remarks, that are 
attributed to Jesus upon this appearance, 
which seem like his parting words, with the 
great closing act of our Lord's earthly life. 
Mark briefly mentions the ascension, and 
has in the verses immediately proceeding, 
(xvi. 15, 18,) elements of sayings, which 



220 ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS. 

are closely related to the close of Matthew. 
But these are so loosely introduced by the 
transition, " and he said unto them," that 
we may believe, that the Saviour spoke 
these on the evening of the resurrection. 
In Luke also, there is a separate account of 
the ascension, but the passages (44-49) 
are so loosely connected with the preceding 
statement, that it remains doubtful whether 
the words, that follow, were spoken at the 
final appearance or not. Finally John, after 
his story of Thomas, closes his Gospel with 
a remark of universal application, (we are 
to consider chapter xxi. as a later addition 
to his treatise.) In his Gospel therefore, 
those parting words are lacking, as the other 
Evangelists have them, since the statements, 
in chapter xxi., contain nothing of those, 
but merely touch upon personalities, which 
chiefly relate to Peter. 

The fact of these various endings of the 
Gospels demands a solution, because it is very 
surprising ; we should naturally believe, that 
the Evangelists are bound to relate the his- 
tory of the risen Saviour with the utmost 



ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS. 221 

particularity, since every appearance and 
everything connected with it must be a wit- 
ness of the truth of the resurrection. In- 
stead of this, they speak so generally, and 
vaguely, that they do not clearly distinguish 
the several appearances from each other, 
and they leave it uncertain, whether the 
sayings, which they introduce, were spoken 
upon one or another occasion. But upon 
further consideration, we find a great truth 
is expressed by this mode of representa- 
tion. 

If we except those incidents, which were 
entirely of a personal application, such as 
occur in the appearances of Jesus to Thom- 
as and Peter, there is the highest evidence 
of truth and harmony in regard to all the 
appearances of our Lord. The object of 
these was not to give any new doctrines, to 
unfold any new view of his office, but sim- 
ply to strengthen the foundations already 
laid, by confirming the faith in the Saviour's 
person. The appearances were therefore 
few, and probably fleeting and transient. 
The Saviour points the disciples to the 



222 ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS. 

Kingdom of God, to the prophecies of the 
Old Testament regarding his person, and to 
their destiny to promote the cause of God. 
The Evangelists accordingly, on account of 
the similarity of our Lord's several remarks, 
might very naturally alter the order of the 
various appearances, but they agree in stat- 
ing the sayings of our Lord with entire con- 
formity in the chief points. 

Many critics have doubted the genuine- 
ness of the closing passage of Mark's Gos- 
pel, (xvi. 9-18,) and others have strenuous- 
ly maintained it. But the fact of the omis- 
sion of this passage in some manuscripts 
may be easily explained, and the connexion 
of the passage with the whole Gospel is 
such, as to make us maintain its genuine- 
ness even against the array of critical names, 
who deny it. 

The incidents given in the closing verses, 
already quoted, have been in part already 
considered. Mark and Luke, however, 
speak briefly of the Lord's ascension. But 
the consideration of this subject belongs 
rather to interpretation of the Book of Acts. 



ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS. 223 

In examining that book, we shall find, that 
our Lord's last appearance to his disciples 
was on the Mount of Olives. The Mount, 
that had beheld the depths of his agony, 
was the scene of his heavenly exaltation. 
In considering the ascension of Christ, we 
abide by the views of his glorified body 
already expressed, and must differ from 
those idealists, who reject the idea of the 
ascension of the body. The Lord's glori- 
fied body disappeared from the Apostles' 
gaze, and dwelt in the world of glory. 

The closing passage in Matthew is re- 
markably significant, (xxviii. 16-20.) This 
Evangelist remarks in the outset, that the fol- 
lowing words of the Lord were spoken at his 
promised appearing in Galilee, and upon a 
mountain. Tradition gives us nothing more 
satisfactory concerning the locality. Perhaps 
this appearance was the same with that re- 
corded in Corinthians, in which he is said to 
have appeared to five hundred brethren at 
once. The words of Christ, which follow, 
seem indeed to have been directed to the 
twelve disciples, or at the most to the seven- 



224 INSTITUTION OF BAPTISM. 

ty ; but we may suppose, that in some pas- 
sages of his remarks, he addressed himself 
particularly to those, who stood near him, as 
we know he sometimes did. There is no 
obstacle to prevent our identifying these two 
appearances, since the solemnity of the 
words seems adapted to an exalted occasion, 
which the large number of the company in- 
dicated, which probably comprised all, who 
at that time believed in the Lord. We can 
thus explain how it was possible, that many 
of those present still doubted. It is incred- 
ible that this was the case with the Apostles, 
but with those believers, who now saw the 
risen Lord for the first time, it might be as 
with the Apostles in the beginning. 

In the fourteenth verse of the chapter of 
Matthew under consideration, the important 
event of the institution of the sacrament of 
Baptism is stated. The words directly re- 
lating to this, and standing in the middle, 
form as it were the kernel of the command ; 
the words, which precede and follow, enclose 
the kernel. We will consider the latter first. 
They evidently misunderstand the passage, 



FORM OF BAPTISM. 



225 



who consider the command to teach, as re^ 
ferring to what was to take place before 
baptism, as if the sense were : " first teach, 
then baptize." The very construction of the 
sentence opposes this idea, for baptizing 
and teaching, are both participles, which 
follow the verb, teach. According to apos- 
tolic usage, moreover, teaching did not pre- 
cede baptism ; this rite ensued upon the 
simple confession of the name of Jesus, as 
the Christ. As soon as the believer became 
a member of the Church by Baptism, he 
participated in the instructions, which were 
given in the Church. The charge, teaching 
them all things, whatsoever I have com- 
manded you, follows the charge as to bap- 
tizing. 

All nations appear to be the object of this 
baptism. Here the Saviour takes his stand 
on the ground of broad universality, accord- 
ing to which the whole human race appears 
the subject of his reconciling work. Be^ 
neath his blessed influences from on high, 
the Lord would that all mankind should be 
quickened to spiritual life. But still his 
15 



226 FORM OF BAPTISM. 

church was not to remain merely a spiritual 
community, but also to have an external, 
visible form. This end was gained by in- 
stituting an outward rite, by which all his 
disciples should be consecrated. But that 
this comprehensive idea escaped the Apos- 
tles, is evident, from the history of Peter in 
the Acts, who was the first one, who was en- 
lightened by the Spirit on the subject. The 
expression in Mark, which speaks of every 
creature as the subject of Gospel preaching, 
is to be considered as meaning the same, as 
all men, or every rational creature. Per- 
haps, however, we ought not to separate 
mankind so entirely from the rest of crea- 
tion, as is commonly done. They, who do 
this, efface a deeply significant idea, which 
pervades the New Testament, that a glori- 
fication of all nature is connected with the 
gospel, a glorification, which proceeds from 
the human world, but is gradually to pervade 
all things. 

The consideration of the form of Baptism 
itself now lies before us. It is in the outset 
plain, that the Lord would ordain a Church- 



FORM OF BAPTISM. 227 

rite, permanent for all ages, by which Bap- 
tism, as well as instruction, is enjoined for 
all people. It follows from this, that Bap- 
tism, as established by our Lord, is essen- 
tially different from that of John, which had 
only a temporary importance. The Christian 
Sacrament of Baptism cannot be a mere 
Baptism of repentance, but the symbol of a 
regeneration, corresponding with the out- 
ward rite. Accordingly, as in John iii. 3, 
salvation is made to depend on regeneration, 
in the parallel passage, Mark xvi. 16, it is 
made to depend on Baptism, and the faith, 
implied by it. The opinion, that the 
rite is essential to the progress of regenera- 
tion, and that the outward form, originally ac- 
companying this, may be lacking under some 
circumstances, is met by the last half of the 
verse, in which the baptized believer is con- 
trasted with the unbeliever, and not with 
the unbaptized. By the introduction of In- 
fant Baptism, which is surely not apostolic, 
but was necessary in the church, when the 
outpouring of spiritual powers ceased, the 
character of Baptism changed. The out- 



228 



FORM OF BAPTISM. 



ward rite then took the old position of John's 
Baptism, and received its full inward con- 
summation by confirmation. 

As to the sense of the phrase, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; the passages 
in Corinthians, which speak of a baptism 
into Moses, and into the name of Paul, 
give the best idea. The being baptized in 
the name of any one, implies, that the rite 
brings with it a pledge or obligation to that 
person, and the exalted object to which 
Christian Baptism binds its subjects is even 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The un^ 
baptized are hence regarded, as without 
actual connexion with God ; this sinful 
alienation, which is the source of all out- 
ward and inward misery, is removed by bap- 
tism and regeneration. Divine influences 
unite with the human soul, and generate a 
higher and heavenly consciousness* It is 
here worthy of remark, that the objects, to 
which baptism pledges those who receive it, 
is called not merely God, but Father, Son 
and Spirit. This is the only passage in the 



FORM OF BAPTISM. 229 

Gospels, in which the Lord mentions the 
three persons together. In many passages, 
however, the Saviour describes the Son, as 
well as the Holy Spirit, as Divine persons ; 
but here they appear in company, and are 
termed together the exalted object, to whom 
believers are pledged by baptism. The es- 
tablished doctrine of the church is essen- 
tially biblical, only the symbolic expression, 
person, is somewhat improper, and liable to 
lead into error. Meanwhile human language 
affords no expression, by which unity of be- 
ing with individuality of consciousness in 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, can be ex- 
pressed more fitly, and we cannot reproach 
the framers of the creed for the choice of 
this expression, but must rather accuse the 
poverty of human language, which is unable 
to indicate, by precise conceptions and ade- 
quate words, those highest and absolute 
relations, which can be truly represented only 
by the intuitions of the purified reason. 

The error, to which the word, person, 
leads, but which all the more profound ec- 
clesiastical scholars have contended against, 



230 FORM OF BAPTISM. 

(especially Augustine, in his profound work 
on the Trinity,) is this. People are led by 
the phrase to think of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, as locally or mechanically exte- 
rior to one another, while they should be 
regarded, as in living union with one another. 
In opposition to this error, it is very profita- 
ble to bring forward the true element in Sa- 
bellianism, which justly recognises this vital 
unity, without accepting that element of 
falsity, which consists in confounding the 
individual consciousness of Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit. As an illustration of the unity 
of being, and difference of consciousness 
in God, we have a correspondent analogy in 
the spiritual nature of man, the image of 
God. As in man, not only spiritual exist- 
ence, but also the consciousness of this 
existence is given, so also in the Divine 
Being, if we would consider it not as a 
dead idea, but as a living God, we suppose 
existence and knowledge of existence. 
This knowledge, or consciousness of God, 
is in itself the Son ; in him the Father finds 
himself, and by him he works all that he 



FORM OF BAPTISM. 231 

does. But as all the powers of the Father 
are concentrated, as it were, in the conscious- 
ness of self, so they return eternally from 
the Son to the original ground of the 
Father; and this return is the Holy Spirit. 
This explains the common usage of scrip- 
ture ; The Father draws to the Son, but, 
The Son leads by the Holy Spirit back to 
the Father. In the manifestation of the 
activity of Father, Son, and Spirit, a progres- 
sion is thus represented. All Divine know- 
ledge goes forth from the Father, as absolute 
power, through the Son, as perfect love, to the 
Holy Spirit, as perfect holiness. But other- 
wise considered, the Holy Spirit leads 
straightway back to the Father, so that the 
end again goes to the beginning and in 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the eternal, 
timeless being of God is represented in his 
real inward motion. But if it seems dark, 
how the inward actions of the Divine Being 
can be regarded, as an individual conscious- 
ness, it is made clear by the fact, that the 
activities of absolute spirit, in the pure life 
of its nature, are being and consciousness ; 



232 



FORM OF BAPTISM. 



but if we understand by the idea of indi- 
viduality, a something isolated, and distinct 
from other spiritual life ; this would be an 
error, as has been already said, and the 
scriptures in their general modes of expres- 
sion show, that they consider the Son and 
Spirit not as persons in such a sense of the 
term. The Son appears, actually individu- 
alized in the person of Jesus, but strives by 
regeneration to convert all humanity to him- 
self and his own nature, wherefore the 
whole church is called merely Christ, (1 Cor- 
inthians xxi. 12,) and the Holy Spirit ap- 
pears poured out in all the hearts of the 
faithful, as the Father, who is present in the 
whole Universe. Hence as the conscious- 
ness of God in itself can only be regarded 
as all-embracing, the idea of person, accord- 
ing to the sense -of the doctrine of the 
Trinity, is to be taken in an all-compre- 
hensive sense, by which a great part of the 
difficulties, that have been found on that 
account in the doctrine, is set aside. 

In the consideration of this important 
passage, the question occurs, whether the 



FORM OF BAPTISM. 233 

Lord in the words already quoted, intended 
to give a fixed form of Baptism or not. 
This question would not have arisen, if the 
other writers of the New Testament had 
shown, that these words were uniformly 
employed in administering the rite ; where- 
as, on the contrary, we find that often in 
the apostolic history, baptism is spoken of as 
administered in the name or into the name 
of Jesus or Christ. In the first place let us 
remember, that the act of baptism is never 
so prescribed, but only alluded to in the 
manner named. It cannot be hence infer- 
red from the use of these phrases, the 
express form, before us, was not employed ; 
these phrases may merely indicate the bap- 
tism, as being Christian, in opposition to the 
baptism of John. We must moreover re- 
member, that passages occur, in which the 
names of Son and Holy Spirit are employed 
in connexion with baptism, so as to render 
a reference to the form employed in baptism 
highly probable. Besides, the oldest Chris- 
tian writers adduce the words of the passage 
before us, as the form of baptism. In es- 



234 FORM OF BAPTISM. 

tablishing the Lord's Supper, as well as the 
rite of Baptism, the Saviour doubtless em- 
ployed the words best adapted to indicate 
the spiritual character of the rites, and it be- 
came the duty of the church to retain these 
words, as the true sacramental forms. Yet 
in all outward matters, the primitive church 
was very free in its movements, and hence 
it might happen, that in some cases they 
would baptize merely in the name of Jesus. 
That this was actually the case, is obvious 
from the later controversies, which Cyprian 
had upon the subject of baptismal heresies. 
The Saviour finally confirms his command 
to the little band of his disciples, to impart 
a new life to the world, by the promise of 
h constant and all-powerful presence. 
Lo I am with you ahvay, even unto the end 
of the world. 

In considering the close of John's twen- 
tieth chapter, if we compare it with the be- 
ginning of his gospel, it seems to bring his 
work excellently to an end. John beautiful- 
ly closes with the history of Thomas and 
the remark, blessed are they that have not 



ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS. 235 

seen and yet have believed, since herein lies 
a most forcible exhortation to the reader, to 
believe the testimony concerning him, who 
was full of grace and truth, without having 
seen him with bodily eyes. And to awake 
this faith, to spread the conviction, that Jesus 
was the Messiah, was the great and entire 
object of John, while the Word, which was 
life, imparted to him, through faith, the 
true life, and the disciple of love would 
make this blessed life accessible to his read- 
ers. In order to keep the minds of his 
readers open in future to the infinite riches 
of Christ's life, John signifies, that he has 
not told all, so that much still remains for 
their investigation, after it was stimulated by 
reading the account already given. The 
thirty-first verse expressly declares the main 
object of this Gospel. Its representation 
of Christ, as the Son of God, was consid- 
ered in the primitive as its chief design, 
without its losing on this account its univer- 
sal application. With this statement of his 
purpose, John fitly closes his work, in order 
to wake in the reader's mind, by this means, 



236 ENDINGS OF THE GOSPELS. 

a sense of the duty, which the knowledge 
of the coming of the promised One placed 
upon him. 



APPENDIX TO JOHN. 237 



SECTION IV. 

APPENDIX TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
(John xxi. 1-25.) 

That the last chapter of the Gospel of 
John, forms an appendix to the whole trea- 
tise, is so evident, and now so generally 
acknowledged, that it needs no further 
proof. But critics have not been able to 
agree, who should be regarded as the author 
of this appendix. Yet the idea seems to 
be more and more admitted, as the only re- 
sult of the researches into this subject, that 
the two last verses only were not written by 
John, and that the remainder of the chapter 
was added to the treatise by its author after 
its completion. 

The chapter, excepting the two last verses, 
(which are too hyperbolical for the style of 
John,) bears the marks of the truth and of the 



238 THE DRAUGHT OF FISHES. 

Evangelist's spirit. The disciples were 
pursuing their usual occupation on the sea 
of Galilee ; a thing not unlikely, when we 
consider, that Paul followed his trade of 
tent-making, even during his ministry. Je- 
sus here suddenly appeared to them. By 
the miraculous draught of fishes, they re- 
cognised the Lord's presence ; and the im- 
petuous Peter immediately swam to him. 
They prepared a repast, and the Lord eats 
with them, not because he needed food, but 
as a symbolic act of love, which is far more 
significant among the Oriental than the 
Western nations. As the draught of fishes 
must remind the disciples, especially Peter, 
of their first call to be disciples ; so this 
meal with their Lord was a token, that the 
Saviour would eat with them, after their 
work should be ended, that blessed feast, 
which the Lord has prepared for his own, 
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the 
Kingdom of God. Even the disciples could 
not have needed the meal for their bodily 
necessities, since their dwellings were at 
hand. 



THE QUESTIONS TO PETER. 239 

Taking this view of the first half of the 
chapter, which relates to the draught of 
fishes, and the taking of food, we readily 
see its connexion with the second half, which 
gives the account of the Lord's three ques- 
tions to Peter, and the prophecies of his 
future destiny. While the Apostle's mind 
was open to the greatness of his future ca- 
reer, the Lord leads him to think of the 
conditions of his success. Love to Christ 
and entire self-devotion were essential re- 
quisites. That the three-fold question of 
the Lord had reference to the three-fold 
denial of Peter, is too obvious to be mis- 
taken. Tholuck lies evidently under a 
mistake in supposing, that, in the intervals 
of conversations with the disciples, the Lord 
addressed the second and third questions to 
Peter. For the immediate repetition of the 
question conveys the strong impression which 
Christ wished to produce. At first, Peter 
remained quite calm, and appealed to the 
Lord's own knowledge, but at the last ques- 
tion, he felt that he designed to inspire him 
with salutary humility, and he was troubled. 



240 THE QUESTIONS TO PETER, 

Still he could sincerely appeal to the reality 
of his love, and therefore the Lord confirm- 
ed the blessed commission : feed my sheep. 
There is also a second circumstance, in 
which Tholuck seems to have failed in the 
interpretation of this passage. He would 
refer the expression, lovest thou me more 
than these, back to the passage in Matthew, 
in which Peter had said, although all shall 
be offended at thee, yet will not I; as if Christ 
had wished to show, that Peter was still in 
error, regarding himself. But it is evident 
from previous passages of the Gospels, that 
Peter had actually a spiritual precedence 
of the other disciples, in respect to active 
energy. Hence it appears that it could be 
rightly said of him, that he loved more ar- 
dently than the others, and that the Saviour 
was not disposed to deny this, is obvious 
from the fact, that he appointed him shepherd 
of his sheep, without Peter having made any 
such confessions as this ; " I love thee far less 
than the others, since I could once deny 
thee." The purpose of Christ was not to 
show Peter, that he had no love, since he 



peter's fate. 241 

actually had it. Yes, he even had it when 
he denied the Saviour, else he would not 
have returned to fidelity, so soon after the 
waves of darkness had passed over him. 
The purpose of the question was to lead 
the Apostle to perfect lowliness, and to re- 
move all arrogant self-reliance. True low- 
liness does not consist in a man's saying he 
has no piety, when he actually has, for that 
would be insensibility, or false humility ; but 
it manifests itself in referring all one can at- 
tain to the workings of grace, not ascribing 
it to himself, as a certain, inalienable posses- 
sion, but regarding them as transitory gifts, 
which the Lord, who gave, can take away 
at his own good pleasure. Then the soul 
remains meek and lowly, even amid every 
ornament of divine grace ; it does not re- 
ceive it as its own property. This Peter 
had done ! The fire of love, in that ardor 
of spirit, which inspired him, overpowered 
him, and he imagined himself strong as a 
hero ; but when the ardor of feeling abated, 
he denied his Master in view of threatening 
dangers. 

16 



242 peter's fate. 

The charge, by which our Lord entrusted 
to Peter the pastoral care of the faithful, is 
followed by a solemn warning of the end of 
his earthly pilgrimage. The figurative lan- 
guage in which this warning is expressed, 
would have been far more wrested from its 
original meaning by commentators, had not 
the Evangelist himself adjoined an expla- 
nation. According to tradition, Peter died 
upon the cross, and the oldest historians of 
the Church refer the words to his crucifix- 
ion. It has been only recently supposed, • 
that the words have reference only to im- 
prisonment, since if understood as applying 
to crucifixion, the girdle must have been 
spoken of before the stretching out of 
hands. But it should be remembered, that 
the language of prophecy is always concise 
and obscure ; hence it remains uncertain, 
whether the phrase, gird thee, refers to the 
binding the hands in the arrest, or to fasten- 
ing to the cross. It is meanwhile sufficient, 
that the expressions chosen can be referred 
to this event, and the satisfactory application 
of them may have first occurred to John, 



peter's fate. 243 

when he heard of the martyr-death of Peter. 
The stretching out of the hands, and binding 
to the cross, are not the only things ex- 
pressed in this passage, but there is also a 
contrast between youth and age. The men- 
tion of youth is commonly altogether un- 
perceived ; the unmeaning antitheses of 
death with old age is the only thing per- 
ceived. But it is obvious, that half of the 
passage should not be taken literally, and 
the other figuratively ; both should be taken 
literally, and both figuratively. The pas- 
sage, accordingly first of all declares merely, 
that in youth man exerts his power without 
any control, but in old age feels his faculties 
restrained by weakness and in need of aid. 
Both parts of the passage have their mean- 
ing ; they refer to youth and old age in the 
spiritual life. In the fulness of spiritual 
power, Peter freely exerted his energies, as 
seemed to him good ; but in old age, he was 
much constrained, hard pushed, and com- 
pelled to go here and there against his will. 
These directions have a disciplinary aim ; 
they were intended to divest the disciples of 



244 john's fate. 

all self-will and self-seeking. The main 
point of this discipline was afforded by Pe- 
ter's crucifixion, in which that was literally 
fulfilled, which had already in a general 
sense been long realized by him. The 
Lord's remark to Peter is followed by a 
passage which, when taken in connexion 
with the Evangelist's explanation, is some- 
what enigmatical. The Lord said to Peter, 
follow me. What follows seems clearly to 
indicate, that this remark was accompanied 
by a correspondent action. Christ turned 
away, Peter followed him, and on his way 
looked back and saw John approaching. 
This gave occasion to the question ; Lord, 
and what shall this man do 1 The reason, 
why the Evangelist so explicitly describes 
his person, is obvious. He alludes to the 
last Supper, in which John sat nearer to 
Jesus than Peter. The latter did not ven- 
ture to ask the question directly, but ad- 
dressed it to Christ through John. Now 
the relation seems reversed ; Peter appears 
the nearer, and John, as it were, to be sup- 
planted. The Evangelist's allusion to the 



PETER AND JOHN. 



245 



Supper, seems therefore necessary in order 
to make the connexion of Peter and John 
with Christ sufficiently obvious. To this, 
as it were jealous, or at least too inquisitive 
question of Peter, the Lord replied ; If I 
will that he tarry, till I come, what is that 
to thee ? follow thou me. The word, tar- 
ry, was understood by many of John's con- 
temporaries to refer to his remaining alive 
on earth, and never dying : but the Evange- 
list rejects this idea, and without further 
explanation, merely repeats the Lord's 
words. 

This whole passage becomes light and 
clear, if we, as already indicated, suppose 
a symbolical act, originating in the words 
relating to the girdle. The Lord would 
signify to Peter more fully and deeply the 
way he was to travel henceforth ; it was 
the way of perseverance and of tribulation 
in the severest conflict with the world. The 
Lord represented this figuratively by with- 
drawing a few steps, which thus gave Peter 
occasion to draw nearer to him. Peter, 
somewhat depressed by thoughts of the 



246 



PETER AND JOHN. 



hard way, which he was to go, asked when 
he saw John approach him ; Lord, and 
what shall this man do ? Because this 
question sprung from a motive not entirely 
pure, that is from a sort of envious reference 
to the milder destiny of John, the reply of 
Christ savors somewhat of rebuke. Jesus 
declared to him, that it was his lot to follow 
faithfully, without any regard to others, but 
John was to remain until his coming. John 
must quietly await the day of his death, 
when the Lord shall come to call him, but 
Peter, in strife and conflict, must follow his 
master even to the cross. Experience con- 
stantly is showing us, that the lives of the 
faithful are thus different. In some, one 
heavy and bitter grief follows another, and 
all life is a bearing of the cross ; with others, 
life glides gently on, and free from these 
great troubles, they gently go to their eternal 
home. Such differences spring not from 
chance, but from divine appointment, since 
all dispensations, wisely ordered in accord- 
ance with human character, must serve to 
perfect the inward life. In Peter and John, 



CONCLUSION. 



247 



we behold, as it were, representatives of two 
wholly different dispositions and destinies, 
the impassioned and the gentle, even devel- 
opment, and to this the Lord refers, without 
detracting from the universal truth, that for 
all the way is narrow and the gate strait, 
that leads to life. 



CONCLUSION. 

Here ends our consideration of the sub- 
lime development of the life of our Lord ; 
he, who proceeding from the depths of the 
Godhead, taking root in the depths of hu- 
manity, presents a spectacle, incomparable 
in splendor, majesty, and beauty ; over- 
whelming, even in its humility.* The per- 

* This magnificent passage, from Jean Paul Richter's 
" Dawnings for Germany," is apt to this point; " An 
individual once trod the earth, who swayed remote 
ages, and founded an eternity of his own; gently 
blooming and pliant as a sun-flower, burning and 
drawing as the sun, he even with his mild aspect 
moved himself and nations, and centuries together 
towards the Universal and Primeval Sun. Did he 
exist, then is there a Providence — or he were it." 



248 CONCLUSION. 

fected fruit of this life, the glorified Saviour, 
returned to the bosom of the Father, from 
which the impulse of love had sent forth the 
eternal Word. But Christ left to the world 
the impress of his appearing, and also a lit- 
tle band of friends, in whose hearts his spirit 
had found an abode. This little band was 
the germ of a new world, an embryo of a 
future, that had not been anticipated. Be- 
fore many years passed away, this new crea- 
tion began to exercise the sway of Christian 
life over the earth. The life, being, and na- 
ture of Christ became a legacy for the world ; 
one century contended for his grave ; another 
fought about his flesh and blood, another 
about his words ; and sorrowful as it has 
been, and still is, to behold sin so often ex- 
citing war among men, it is yet consoling, 
that the object of such strife is such, as must 
put an end to all quarrelling — the Prince of 
Peace. He will finally set at rest all strife 
concerning himself. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



T&T>3.0 



